The Arkansas Valley Conduit debate: What headlines leave out

By Bob Cooper | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

In the last week we have seen media all over the state cover Trump’s veto of the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act. All the headlines point to Trump punishing Colorado and depriving people of having clean water. However, none of the media covered important details about the project. Nor have they asked key questions. Is the project viable and should federal funds be used to support the project?   

Consider this background info from federal documents for the project:

“The purpose of AVC is to deliver water for municipal and industrial water use within Southeastern’s boundaries. This water supply is needed to supplement or replace existing poor quality water and to help meet AVC participants’ projected water demands.”  

The project was approved in 1962. It’s for 130 miles of pipe with distribution systems to attach local communities. 

The plan is to deliver clean water to about 50,000 people across southeastern Colorado. Built into it is a growth assumption that pushes that number to 75,000 by 2070.

Most of the smaller rural counties the conduit runs through have seen little to no population growth, and in some cases outright decline, while Pueblo County, the region’s only real population center – has grown, but only modestly.

In 2009, Congress passed a bill to fund the project with 65% federal funds and 35% local funds, however, the way the funding was set up is that the federal funding would be upfront and the local funding would be used after the pipeline was in place collecting revenue. 

Due to huge funding issues and project delays little was started until 2020. Under the Biden Administration, Congress passed the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which funded millions in additional investment in the project. 

As of 2025, federal expenditures are now $590M. State and local contributions are estimated to be about $90M.

Now what media is not mentioning on this project is costs are soaring to complete it. What started with an estimated project cost of $600M has soared to $1.4B. To date, it is estimated that 12 miles of pipe have been installed in the 130 mile project. 

To complete the project, it is also estimated $800M – $900M are needed with no estimated completion date. 

Think about this. All people want our citizens to have clean water. If you invest in a home, you check the water because it determines the value of the property. Property with clean accessible water is worth more than property than those with water problems. The well water problem in this area has been known for over 6 decades. About 25% of the families in this region are low income (under $47,000 / year) and may have lived there for decades. 

So politicians decided to help fix the problem and voted to fund the water project with federal funds. The AVC does not benefit anyone else but the 50,000 residents that will use the water from the project. The AVC is not like a federal highway that provides commercial benefit to all who travel. 

The problem is not a federal clean up site. The project was funded to try and reverse the population decline in that region. They also assumed that the problem to solve revolved around an issue of clean water. 

When projects like the AVC are not critiqued by the media this is what happens. 

So now the total costs of the project are estimated at $1.4B to provide water for 50,000 people. For each person the cost is $28,000. So if the average home has 2.5 people in it, the cost to bring “clean” water to the home is 2.5 x 28,000 = $70,000. 

That’s project capital cost, not what any single household will write a check for, but it’s still the scale taxpayers are being asked to carry. That’s not what any household writes a check for, but it is the scale of public capital being committed, and it ultimately falls on every American taxpayer from Seattle to Kennebunkport.

Even if the project were evaluated on a “to go” basis, it is still questionable. If $800M is needed to finish the project, that is still a cost of $40,000 per home. Also note, some areas in the project may have local tap fees added to that cost. 

There’s also a reason this project sat on the shelf for decades, and it wasn’t because anyone was confused about the problem. As federal documents themselves put it:

“The AVC Project was not constructed with the other original Fryingpan-Arkansas Project features primarily because of the beneficiaries’ inability to repay 100 percent of construction costs.”

The major health issue for the 50,000 citizens in the AVC project area is that the well water contains radionuclides. The radionuclides involved are naturally occurring, and they show up at trace levels — usually just enough to push readings over EPA drinking water standards.

Long term drinking of water with radionuclides has links to cancer. The water is safe for showers or cleaning and other common household use. 

Water purification systems that can remove radionuclides are called reverse osmosis (RO) purifiers. Starting in 1980, RO purification systems became economical for use with sinks to filter drinking water. 

Today homes can install one of these systems for well under $1000. Whole house systems are very expensive and can range from $5000 and up. However, if the objective is clean, safe water to drink, the under-sink RO system is an option that can be installed in a day. 

For citizens in the AVC project there are no subsidies to help them acquire RO purification. Decentralized purification options, including reverse osmosis, were ultimately rejected in favor of a centralized pipeline.

If the purpose is to immediately help correct a “clean water” health issue, politicians would immediately recommend subsidies for low income households to acquire these RO purifiers. Higher income families in the region probably have already purchased a RO purifier. 

With this as a background, notice how the media is not mentioning any of the details on this costly water project. If this were about the health of these families, you would think a program to help them acquire RO purification would be in place. There may be even a broader question, should federal tax payer dollars be used for a project like this?  

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.