Ciruli Associates - Colorado Politics - Polls - Research

Citizens Want Vote on Paying to Enlarge Reservoirs

A new poll of 750 voters in nine counties in the Arkansas River Basin shows that a majority support studies to enlarge Pueblo and Turquoise reservoirs, but oppose major aspects of the so-called PSOP legislation (Preferred Storage Options Plan).

Legislation currently under consideration in the U.S. Congress authorizes cities outside the Arkansas River Basin to store water in Pueblo Reservoir. The cities could then move that water and use it outside the basin. The legislation also authorizes a study to enlarge two reservoirs on the Arkansas River – Pueblo Reservoir in Pueblo County and Turquoise Reservoir in Lake County.

Question: Study enlarging Pueblo Reservoir in Pueblo County and Turquoise Reservoir in Lake County.

Question: Allow the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which controls the reservoirs, the authority to contract with any city, water department or other government or private agency inside or outside of Colorado to store water in and transfer water out of the reservoirs.

Question: Allow the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the reservoirs, the authority to contract with cities like Aurora or Colorado Springs to store water in and transfer water out of the expanded reservoirs for up to 40 years.

(A total of 250 interviews were conducted in counties in Lower Arkansas Valley: Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Otero and Prowers; 250 interviews in the Upper Arkansas Valley: Chaffee, Fremont and Pueblo; and 250 interviews in El Paso County.)

Ciruli Associates, N750, April 2005

Seventy-two percent of Arkansas River Basin voters support studies to enlarge the reservoirs. There is less clear direction to another potential aspect of the Legislation: to give the Bureau of Reclamation the authority to store Aurora and Colorado Springs water in the Pueblo Reservoir (a slight plurality, 45% favor, but 42% oppose). Sixty-two percent of voters oppose giving the Bureau of Reclamation authority to store and move water to cities inside/outside of Colorado.

The survey was conducted for the Pueblo Chieftain Apr. 6-11, 2005, by Ciruli Associates, with 750 registered voters in nine southeast Colorado counties. Statistical range of accuracy in this survey is ±3.6 percentage points in 19 out of 20 cases for a sample size of 750. Sample tolerances for subgroups are larger. For example, the confidence interval for a cluster of counties of 250 respondents is ±6.2 percentage points.

Variation in Support and Opposition
There is considerable variation in support and opposition among the major regions of the Arkansas Valley River Basin. Table 1 shows the study to enlarge the reservoirs has strong support among Upper Arkansas River (65%) and El Paso County voters (76%), but only 48 percent of Lower Arkansas River voters favor the study. Not surprisingly, there is little support, except for El Paso County voters (56%), to allow Aurora or Colorado Springs to store water in the enlarged reservoirs (see second question in Table 1).

Table 1 - Major Regions of the Arkansas River Basin Support for and Opposition to Parts of PSOP Legislation
	Support				Oppose
	Total¹	LAV²	UAV	El Paso	Total¹	LAV²	UAV	El Paso
Study enlarging reservoirs...........	72%	48%	65%	76%	18%	40%	28%	13%
Bureau of Reclamation contract with Aurora/ Colorado Springs	45	14	22	56	42	79	72	28
Bureau of Reclamation contract with any agency inside/outside of Colorado	27	10	14	33	62	82	79	54

¹Total amounts are weighted in proportion to voting population
²Abbreviations used are: Lower Arkansas Valley, LAV; Upper Arkansas Valley, UAV; and El Paso County, El Paso

Finally, there is little support in any part of the basin to allow the Bureau of Reclamation the authority to store and transfer water to any agency inside or outside of Colorado (see question 3 in Table 1).

Follow-up Question
In a follow-up question near the conclusion of the interview, support and opposition for the PSOP legislation was again tested (see Figure 2). The expansion still had overwhelming support (70%). It remained strongest among El Paso County (75%) and Upper Arkansas River voters (63%). But, in a shift toward more opposition, a plurality of voters oppose (46% oppose to 40% support) allowing cities outside the basin to store water and then move and use it outside the basin. Voters in the Upper and Lower Arkansas Rivers strongly oppose that part of the legislation (76% LAV and 73% UAV oppose) whereas a plurality of El Paso County voters favor it (49% support to 34% oppose).

Question: Secondly, at this time, do you support or oppose authorizing cities outside the Arkansas River Basin to store water in Pueblo Reservoir and then move and use the water outside the Arkansas River Basin?

[top]

Residents Want a Vote on Paying for Reservoir Expansion
Voters in the Arkansas River Basin overwhelmingly (93%) want a vote on any costs associated with expansion of Pueblo and Turquoise reservoirs (see Figure 3).

Question: If the study shows the reservoirs can be enlarged, early estimates show enlargement would cost about $120 million dollars, which would have to be paid for by the users of the water either through higher water fees or increased property taxes. Do you believe the people who have to pay for the enlargement through either fees or taxes should or should not have a vote on the enlargement?

There was little support to pay more on water bills or through increased property taxes to enlarge the reservoirs. Less than half of voters (45%) support an increase in their monthly water bill and only a third of voters (33%) support a property tax increase to pay for expansion.

Opposition to Diversion of Arkansas River
Water Outside the Basin
Beyond the mixed reviews for the PSOP legislation, there are even higher levels of opposition to the concept of selling Arkansas River water to Denver metro area cities (30% approve and 60% disapprove). El Paso County was the least aware of the issue (15% – “don’t know”) and the least opposed; 48 percent disapprove and 39 percent approve (see Figure 4).

The same question was asked in September 2001. At that time disapproval was 42 percent and approval was 25 percent. Since the 2001 survey, opposition to the sale of Arkansas River water increased in each region (opposition up 10% in LAV, 18% in UAV and 19% in El Paso).

Question: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the selling of water from the Arkansas River to cities in the Denver metro area?

Also, voters continue to believe it is important to maintain irrigated agriculture in the Arkansas Valley (93% in 2005; 95% in 2001).

[top]

Low Level of Awareness of the Issue
The closer people live to the Pueblo Reservoir, the more aware they are of the PSOP issue. Pueblo Chieftain coverage of the issue has been intense. The paper’s strongest penetration is in Pueblo County in the Upper Arkansas Basin (see Figure 5).

Question: The U.S. Congress has been considering a bill, the so-called PSOP legislation, that authorizes cities outside the Arkansas River Basin to store water in Pueblo Reservoir. The cities could then move that water and use it outside the basin. The legislation also authorizes a study to enlarge two reservoirs on the Arkansas River − Pueblo Reservoir in Pueblo County and Turquoise Reservoir in Lake County. How much would you say you have heard or read about this issue: a great deal, some information, very little or almost nothing at all?

Fifty-three percent of Upper Arkansas Valley residents had either heard or read a great deal or some information about the water purchase, but only 34 percent of El Paso residents had the same level of information.

Pipeline and Environmental Studies
Basin voters are highly parochial in their support for local pipelines. El Paso County voters support (68%) the Southern Delivery Pipeline project, which is a pipeline that would start near Pueblo Reservoir and run to Colorado Springs. But there is little support for it in the lower or upper Arkansas valleys (El Paso – 68% support, LAV – 10% support and UAV – 17% support).

The Arkansas Valley Conduit, which would bring water to towns on the Arkansas River toward the Kansas border, has support on the Lower Arkansas Valley (70%), but only modest levels of support in the Upper Arkansas River area (48%) or El Paso County (41%).

There is, however, overall support for environmental studies of the reservoir enlargements, the two pipelines and any diversion of water from the Arkansas River to cities along the Front Range of Colorado (see Figure 6).

Question: Let me ask you about conducting environmental studies on the effects of proposed projects on the Arkansas River water quality. Some people believe environmental studies are necessary to protect the environment and quality of water. Others believe environmental studies are not needed, are too expensive and cause too much delay. As I read a list of the following projects, please tell me if you believe environmental studies should be required or should not be required before the project is approved? [ROTATED]

Statements of Principles Concerning
Use of Arkansas River Water
There are large majorities of voters concerned about Arkansas River water quality after municipal use. Also, there is considerable concern that the money paid for water by municipalities does not compensate for the loss of agriculture, jobs and the natural environment (see Figure 7).

Question: Next, I will read several statements concerning Arkansas River water. Some people agree and others disagree with the statements. Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree. [ROTATED] After Colorado Springs uses the water from the Pueblo Reservoir, it is recycled and released down Fountain Creek back to the Arkansas River. The recycled water should be the same or better quality than when it was taken from the reservoir.

Question: When water from the Arkansas River is transferred to cities in the Denver metro area, the money paid to the owners of the water is not sufficient to compensate for the loss of agriculture, jobs and the natural environment.

Question: Taking water out of Pueblo Reservoir for Colorado Springs or Aurora will hurt Arkansas River water quality downstream from the reservoir. Water quality must be considered before water is taken out of the reservoir.

Research Design

Conducted by: Ciruli Associates
Sponsored by: Pueblo Chieftain
Date: Apr. 6-11, 2005
Area: Nine southeastern Colorado counties. Voters in El Paso (250); Upper Arkansas (250): Chaffee, Fremont and Pueblo; and Lower Arkansas (250): Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Otero and Prowers
Abbreviations used: Lower Arkansas Valley, LAV; Upper Arkansas Valley, UAV; and El Paso County, El Paso
Sample Size: 750 registered likely voters; 250 voters in each area. Total amounts are weighted in proportion to voting population.
Margin of Error: 750 voters,±3.6 percentage points; 250 voters,±6.2 percentage points

Ciruli Associates • 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 208• Denver, CO 80218 • PH (303) 399-3173 • FAX (303) 399-3147.