Important News

Congressional Bill H.R. 131 Vetoed

Interesting: 0/0 • Support: 0/0Log in to vote

Key takeaways

  • President Trump vetoed H.R. 131, the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, and returned it to the House without approval.
  • H.R. 131 would have extended the AVC repayment period by 25 years (to 75 years total) and cut the interest rate in half.
  • The Arkansas Valley Conduit is a pipeline to supply municipal and industrial water to southeastern Colorado; it was authorized in 1962 as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
  • More than $249 million has already been spent on the AVC; total costs are estimated at $1.3 billion.
  • A 2009 law reduced the AVC repayment obligation from 100% to 35% and allowed miscellaneous Fryingpan-Arkansas Project revenues to count toward the AVC cost share.
  • The administration's stated rationale for the veto is preventing federal taxpayers from bearing additional costs for what it views as a local project originally meant to be repaid by local users.

Follow Up Questions

What is the Arkansas Valley Conduit (AVC) and which communities does it serve?Expand

The Arkansas Valley Conduit (AVC) is a roughly 120–130‑mile drinking‑water pipeline system that will carry treated water from Pueblo Reservoir east along the Arkansas River valley. It is intended to replace contaminated or unreliable groundwater and provide reliable municipal and industrial water to 39 small cities, towns, and rural water systems in southeastern Colorado—serving about 50,000 people in Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Otero, Prowers, and eastern Pueblo counties (including communities such as Boone, Avondale, La Junta, Rocky Ford, Las Animas, Lamar, Eads, Wiley, and many local water associations).

What specific changes to repayment terms and interest rates would H.R. 131 have enacted?Expand

Under current law the local participants must repay 35% of AVC construction costs over no more than 50 years, with interest. H.R. 131 would have (1) extended that repayment period by 25 years to a total of 75 years, and (2) substantially reduced the interest burden on that local share—described in the White House veto message as cutting the interest rate roughly in half, and in the bill sponsor’s summary as eliminating interest on non‑federal construction costs owed by local entities.

How would extending the repayment period and cutting the interest rate affect federal taxpayers versus local users?Expand

Extending the repayment period and lowering the interest rate would reduce annual and total debt costs for the local water providers and their customers (lowering monthly water bills and making the 35% local share easier to afford). Because the federal government would recover its construction outlays more slowly and with less interest, more of the project’s real cost would effectively be shifted onto federal taxpayers—one reason the Trump White House argued the bill would force “Federal taxpayers to bear even more of the massive costs,” while local sponsors explicitly sought these changes to “keep the cost of the AVC as low as possible for AVC participants” and to let Fryingpan‑Arkansas Project revenues cover much of the local share.

What did the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 change about the AVC's funding and repayment obligations?Expand

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111‑11) fundamentally changed AVC financing. It amended the original 1962 Fryingpan‑Arkansas Project authorization so that: (1) the federal government would pay 65% of AVC construction costs and local beneficiaries 35%, instead of expecting 100% repayment from locals; (2) Congress could appropriate annual federal funds “as necessary” to build the AVC; (3) the local 35% share would be repaid over a period of not more than 50 years; and (4) “miscellaneous revenues” generated by the broader Fryingpan‑Arkansas Project could be credited toward that 35% local repayment obligation.

What is the current construction and funding status or timeline for the AVC after the State of Colorado's $100 million authorization?Expand

After Colorado authorized $90 million in state loans and $10 million in grants for the AVC in 2020, the combination of state support and new federal funding moved the project from planning into full construction. Key points as of late 2025:

  • The state’s $100 million package is being provided through the Colorado Water Conservation Board to help local participants finance their share of the project.
  • The Bureau of Reclamation has since awarded multiple construction contracts: a three‑party Pueblo conveyance contract (2022), Boone Reach 1 and Boone Reach 2 trunk‑line segments (2022–2023), and several 2024–2025 contracts for treatment facilities, injection/backflow sites, and design and easement acquisition.
  • Federal funding has accelerated via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), with AVC allocations of $60 million (2022), $100 million (2023), $90 million (2024), and $250 million (2025), on top of earlier regular appropriations.
  • Updated estimates put total AVC costs around $1.4 billion (2023 dollars); stakeholders were told the trunk line to Lamar was previously targeted for completion around 2035, but the exact schedule depends on future appropriations and is currently being re‑evaluated given cost increases and new funding. Overall, trunk‑line construction near Pueblo is underway and major portions of the project are funded, but full build‑out to all participating communities is expected to take at least into the mid‑2030s.
What are the "miscellaneous revenues from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project" and how are they applied to the AVC cost share?Expand

In this context, “miscellaneous revenues from the Fryingpan‑Arkansas Project” are the fees and other income that the larger Fry‑Ark system earns from selling or leasing use of its facilities—especially payments from excess‑capacity and exchange contracts that let outside water users store or move water through Fry‑Ark reservoirs, pipelines, and other infrastructure. Under the 2009 law (P.L. 111‑11), these miscellaneous revenues are credited toward the AVC participants’ 35% construction cost share: they can be applied to AVC construction and repayment, reducing how much local water providers must repay directly. Local sponsors’ stated goal is to use these revenues, potentially over an extended period, to pay off the entire trunk‑line portion of the AVC so that participants mainly repay only their own spurs and delivery lines.

Comments

Only logged-in users can comment.
Loading…