With debate over next year’s budget soon to unfold, two southeastern Colorado lawmakers say they are prepared to dig in their heels if more money is taken away from water projects affecting their region.
Early indications are that the funding will be left largely in tact in the coming budget year after having been diverted last year to help cover the state’s budget deficit. Neverthess, Rep. Wes Mckinley, a Democrat from Walsh, and Republican Sen. Ken Kester, of Las Animas, say they are on guard and that the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s funds need to be protected to keep water projects going in their districts.
Of special concern is the Arkansas Conduit Project, which took a temporary hit last year when more than $100 million was diverted from the water conservation board to help the state through its fiscal straits and balance the state budget. Some $35 million of that total came out of the conduit project’s funding, putting federal matching dollars at risk as well. The project provides treated water to southeastern Colorado.
That money since has been recouped through higher-than-anticipated revenue from the state’s severance tax, according to Colorado Water Conservation Board Direction Jennifer Gimbel. Gimbel also said that, so far, next’s year’s pending budget takes $11 million from the board’s funds but that the diversion won’t affect the conduit or any other current projects.
McKinley acknowledged the budget process is far from over.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if they did take some more,” said McKinley. “It seems like if there’s money out there, there’s several hands grabbing for it.”
Recommendations from the staff of the legislative Joint Budget Committee, which drafts the state’s budget, indicate there won’t be any diversions imperiling the water projects in the coming year. If so, Mckinley said, he might try to get the budget amended to include even more funding.
Kester echoed McKinleys assessment.
“We have to have that money … and we can’t just take it down to nothing and continue to operate the water programs,” Kester said.
Mckinley said he is not just concerned about the water fund but also about the state’s Branding Board cash fund, which has about $500,000 in savings that he says the Department of Agriculture would like to have. McKinley said that he was successful in keeping the fund in tact last year despite attempts by the department to tap into that money.
“It’s a savings fund, a users fund. The Brand Board has managed to save up a pretty good chunk of money, and there’s people trying to get it,” said McKinley.