Questions of Reclamation's authority have surfaced again in recent months as talks progress on a proposed storage and exchange contract with Aurora.

"Aurora is not being provided project water. This proposed contract will provide storage and exchange of Aurora's non-project water when there is excess capacity available," said Fred Ore, Eastern Colorado area manager for Reclamation.

Ore said the authority of Reclamation to deal with Aurora comes from the Reclamation Act of 1902; the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939, which broadened its authority to include hydroelectric, municipal and other projects as well as agriculture; and the 1962 Fryingpan Arkansas Act.

Ore cited one-year contracts dating back to 1986 that allow Aurora to store water in Lake Pueblo and a contract with the Southeastern District that spells out how Aurora's water would be the first to spill if Lake Pueblo is full.

But the issue of Reclamation's authority for entering contracts with entities outside project boundaries has continued to vex officials in the Arkansas Valley over the 20-year course of those contracts.

John Singletary, President of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, raised the question again nearly a year ago, claiming Reclamation has never fully answered concerns.

Singletary bantered briefly with Ore over the issues, including authority, the Lower Ark board raised last month in a letter to Reclamation, but Ore refused to become engaged in public debate.

"Rules prohibit us from getting into public comment or questions and answers," Ore told Singletary.

In October, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., also raised the issue.

"I have serious concern that the Bureau proposes to grant such rights to Aurora and question the Bureau's authority to do so," Salazar said.

The battle is nothing new.

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District attorney Lee Miller wrote a brief outlining legal objections to an Aurora contract in 2001.

At the time, the district's position was Reclamation's only authority was derived from the 1920 Miscellaneous Purposes Act and required Southeastern's approval for any contract.

That act was again cited by water attorney Bill Paddock at a recent Pueblo Board of Water Works meeting, but Reclamation officials said they are not relying on that act in the Aurora contract.

The authorization cited by Ore on Monday appears in the proposed Aurora contract and the draft environmental assessment.

Reclamation has never offered a point-by-point rebuttal to Miller's 23-page memorandum, however.

Former Commissioner John Keys wrote the district a short letter in 2003 simply stating a review showed Reclamation had the authority.

Commissioner Robert Johnson, who was appointed earlier this year, has not publicly addressed the issue.

After the 2003 reply, the Southeastern district entered an intergovernmental agreement that would provide about $24 million in payments to the district if Aurora gets a long-term contract.

"The board has chosen not to pursue the question," Southeastern Executive Director Jim Broderick said Monday.

Southeastern also questioned the contracts when they began in 1986, and was told by then Project Manager Ray Willms that Reclamation had the authority.

Aurora submitted its own letter to Reclamation in 2001, asserting that past contracts related to the Homestake Project and ongoing storage agreements were sufficient justification for continuing arrangements.

Singletary and Salazar have both cited testimony in Congress dating back to 1953 that shows the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project never envisioned using the Fry-Ark Project for anything except providing drinking water to cities in the valley and supplemental water for agriculture.

Salazar also wants to remove Aurora from a proposed Preferred Storage Options Plan bill that has stalled in Congress for five years. In previous drafts, the PSOP bill has contained specific sections that would formalize Reclamation Authority to contract with Aurora.