The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday rejected a Colorado-led effort to override a Dec. 30 presidential veto of a measure that would have helped finance the Arkansas Valley conduit.

The measure, known as H.R. 131 and sponsored by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Windsor, sought to help local water providers with their share of the cost of the 130-mile pipeline that starts at Pueblo Reservoir and ends in Lamar.

The vote was 248-177. All House Democrats and 35 Republicans voted to override President Donald Trump’s veto of the bill. All of Colorado’s legislative delegation voted for the override.

In a statement after the vote, Boebert told Colorado Politics, “I’m obviously disappointed by the outcome of today’s vote. Promises made should be kept.”

“My work here isn’t finished. Stay tuned,” she added.

To override a presidential veto, the measure would have needed approximately 288 votes, including about 75 Republicans. That’s based on the current composition of the House, which has four vacant seats.

In vetoing Boebert’s bill, Trump said the project is a “taxpayer handout” and is expensive and unreliable. He also said Colorado residents — not federal taxpayers – should pay for the Arkansas Valley Conduit.

The conduit, first approved by President John Kennedy in 1962, started construction in 2023 with $100 million in state funds and more than $500 million in federal funds.

The conduit would provide clean drinking water to residents of 39 communities in the lower Arkansas Valley. The groundwater contains high levels of selenium and radium, rendering it unsafe to drink without expensive filtration systems.

The project’s total cost is now estimated at $1.39 billion, more than double the estimates of a few years ago. Under federal legislation approved in 2009, the federal government would cover 65% of the costs, with the state of Colorado and 40 local water providers covering the rest.

H.R. 131 sought two things: Waive the interest payments for the local water providers and extend the repayment period from 50 years to 100 years.

Both the U.S. House and Senate unanimously approved H.R. 131 on voice votes late last year.

That may reference a future effort to include H.R. 131 in another bill.

“This is Washington at its worst,” said U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, who sponsored the bill in the Senate along with Sen. Michael Bennet.

He noted that every single U.S. House member supported the bill to “bring clean water to Southeastern Colorado before Christmas.”

“But today, they refused to stick to their guns and override President Trump’s retaliatory veto. Rural Colorado is paying the price for these political games,” he said.

Bennet also blasted House Republicans who voted against the override for abandoning rural Colorado: “Today’s vote is an outrageous abdication of duty. They have voluntarily relinquished their legislative responsibilities, forfeiting their obligation to represent the best interests of the people they serve. “

Bennet said that allowing the veto to stand means “non-controversial, bipartisan bills that pass without objection can be rejected for reasons wholly unrelated to their substance, and weaponized politically.”

“Make no mistake, this was part of the president’s vindictive war on Colorado because he is frustrated with our state for not bending the knee,” he said.

During a one-hour debate in the House on Thursday, Boebert criticized what he described as the president’s mischaracterization of the project as contained in his veto message. Trump had called the project an “expensive and unreliable” policy and a taxpayer handout.

“Contrary to what the veto message states, my bill does not authorize any additional federal funding,” she told the House. “It simply modifies the repayment terms for small rural communities in my district so they are able to afford their 35% cost share of the project that they are statutorily obligated to repay.”

Boebert noted that Trump supported the project in his first administration.

The president and his administration “did the right thing, continuing with their commitment to improve Western water infrastructure,” and more than doubling the federal investment in the project, she said. She also pointed out that then-Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt, a native of Rifle, attended the project’s groundbreaking.

“The Trump administration got it done,” she added.

“It’s past time that we finally fulfill the promise and the federal government that the federal government made to the communities I represent in Colorado,” she said.

The project crosses two congressional districts: Boebert’s and the 3rd Congressional District of Rep. Jeff Hurd, R-Grand Junction.

For Hurd, the bill is about keeping promises.

This is not a symbolic vote nor a messaging or partisan vote, Hurd told his colleagues in the House.

“This is a test of whether Congress keeps its word not just to southeastern Colorado, but to every community in every state, and in every district,” he said.

Water is survival, he said, adding, “It means whether communities grow or disappear, whether agriculture survives, and whether moms can trust the water they give their kids out of the tap.”

The people of the Arkansas Valley expect Washington to keep its word, not abandon them midway through construction, Hurd said.

Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Lafayette, added his support for the override. He also criticized Trump.

“Why did the president veto this bill? We are here, unfortunately, profoundly because the president has declared war on our state,” he said, noting Trump’s rejection of disaster aid for Rio Blanco and LaPlata counties, freezing childcare assistance, food assistance, attempting to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research and now denying access to clean water to 50,000 people in southeastern Colorado. He called the veto “unconscionable.”

In his veto message, Trump said the project was not built after its approval in 1962 because it was economically “unviable.”

He said H.R. 131 “would continue the failed policies of the past by forcing Federal taxpayers to bear even more of the massive costs of a local water project — a local water project that, as initially conceived, was supposed to be paid for by the localities using it.”