A subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday got its first look at a bill sponsored by Colorado’s two senators that would help finance the Arkansas Valley Conduit.

S. 5013 is known as Finish the AVC Act. It would extend the period for repaying the federal government for the project from 50 to 100 years and waive interest payments on those federal costs to local water systems

The bill went through a “markup” — an opportunity for tweaks and changes — Wednesday with the subcommittee on water and power, chaired by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR.

Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Denver, one of the bill’s sponsors, is a member of that subcommittee and the Energy and Natural Resources committee.

Wednesday’s hearing included testimony from Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Denver, and Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton, who advocated for the bills the subcommittee reviewed.

Hickenlooper noted the bill would “help ensure the affordability of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a critical infrastructure project in southeastern Colorado” that Bennet had been working on for over a decade. “These communities have been waiting for 60 years to get clean, reliable water. We’re committed to getting that done,” he added.

In his remarks, Bennet noted the decades-long history of the project, which started as a promise from President John F. Kennedy during a 1962 visit to Pueblo. The conduit is the final component of the Frying Pan-Arkansas Project, intended to bring water from the Western Slope to the Arkansas River basin, which slowed to a trickle before reaching the Colorado-Kansas state line. Part of the project included building Pueblo Reservoir.

Bennet added that the conduit will deliver clean drinking water from Pueblo Reservoir for the first time to farmers, ranchers and rural communities in the lower Arkansas River valley.

Bennet noted that the project finally broke ground last year. However, costs have doubled in just the last five years, from $640 million to $1.3 billion, due to inflation and higher labor costs.

That’s resulted in the project slipping further behind, Bennet said. Rural communities—there are 39 water providers paying into the project —are already on the hook for a significant cost share and will struggle to repay the federal government, Bennet added. “As costs continue to rise, it’s important to relieve the burden of interest payments so these underserved communities can make good on their part of the cost-sharing agreement.”

The 39 water providers are responsible for 35% of the project’s cost; the federal government covers the rest. So far, more than $450 million has been invested in the project, largely through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. The state of Colorado has invested $120 million in the project, with $90 million in loans and $30 million in grants.

Bennet noted the bipartisan effort to get the conduit started, pointed to the past work of Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma and Reps. Ken Buck, R-Windsor and Scott Tipton, R-Cortez. 

“Farmers and ranchers in Southeast Colorado need Congress’s help to get this project across the finish line and access for the first time clean, safe water for their families, for their crop, and for their livestock,” he told the subcommittee.

Touton added that she was at the project’s groundbreaking last year but is more interested in a ribbon-cutting ceremony at its completion.

That will be a while as the project will not be completed until 2039.

Wednesday’s hearing also included markup on a bill (S.4576) to reauthorize the System Conservation Pilot Program, which is directed by the Upper Colorado River Basin.

The program started out as a pilot from 2015 to 2018, to provide funding for voluntary, compensated and temporary conservation of water within the upper basin’s four states (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico). That water would then help shore up levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead on the Colorado River. But the program was criticized for its cost and limited success in conserving water, including how to measure those savings.

Last year, as part of its response to Touton’s call for two to four million acre-feet of water savings in Colorado, the commission decided to give the program another try, but on a narrower basis. The 2024 program would also help inform the commission on whether to move forward with demand management. This controversial idea relies on some of the same ideas as the SCPP: voluntary, temporary and compensated water conservation by water users, primarily in agriculture.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board examined demand management several years ago but didn’t recommend whether Colorado should participate in a program of that type.

Hickenlooper, who is joined by Sen. John Barasso, R-Wyo. on the bill, said it will help states like Colorado and Wyoming investigate the best ways to take on voluntary water conservation measures between now and 2026, when the interim operating guidelines on the Colorado River expire.

“Understanding now what works best for water conservation in the Upper Basin can help us handle a drier future,” Hickenlooper added.

Both bills got through Wednesday’s hearing without any suggested changes. 

The next step a committee vote and then on to the Senate floor.