Report on the Arkansas Valley Conduit Project and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

This report details the status, history, and implications of the Arkansas Valley Conduit (AVC) project, a significant infrastructure initiative in Colorado designed to address critical water quality issues. The project’s objectives and challenges are analyzed through the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3, SDG 6, SDG 9, SDG 10, and SDG 17.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation & SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The primary driver for the AVC project is the long-standing failure to meet basic standards for clean water and the subsequent impact on public health in the Lower Arkansas Valley. This directly addresses the core targets of SDG 6 (ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all) and SDG 3 (ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages).

• Historical Contamination: For over 60 years, communities in the region have relied on groundwater from wells contaminated with naturally occurring toxic elements.
• Public Health Risks: Key contaminants identified include radium and selenium, which are linked to severe health problems such as bone cancer, heart attacks, and lung issues with long-term exposure.
• Regulatory Non-Compliance: Seventeen of the 39 participating water districts are currently under state enforcement orders from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to permanently remove contaminants from their water supply.
• Project Goal: The AVC is designed to provide a permanent solution by delivering clean, safe water from the Pueblo Reservoir, thereby eliminating the health risks associated with contaminated groundwater and bringing communities into compliance with safety standards.
• Interim Solutions and Their Limitations:
  • Some communities, like Las Animas, have installed expensive reverse osmosis (RO) systems. While these systems produce safe drinking water, they create contaminated wastewater (reject water), which poses a new environmental challenge for discharge into the Arkansas River.
  • The May Valley Water Association utilizes a public water dispenser to meet state obligations, highlighting the inadequacy of the current system.

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure & SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The AVC represents a monumental investment in resilient infrastructure (SDG 9) intended to provide a foundation for sustainable economic growth (SDG 8) in an economically challenged region.

• Infrastructure Scale: The project involves constructing a 100-plus-mile pipeline to serve 39 communities and 45,000 people.
• Economic Enablement: Access to a reliable and safe water supply is a prerequisite for economic development. Local leaders state that without the conduit, attracting new businesses or expanding existing ones is impossible, as they cannot secure new water supplies or the necessary discharge permits.
• High Investment Cost: The project’s estimated cost has escalated from $600 million in 2016 to $1.39 billion as of 2025, reflecting the significant financial commitment required to build modern infrastructure in remote areas.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities & SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The project is a case study in addressing regional inequalities (SDG 10) through multi-stakeholder partnerships (SDG 17). The high cost relative to the region’s low household income necessitates a collaborative funding model.

Financial Structure and Collaborative Efforts

The project’s viability depends on a complex partnership between federal, state, and local entities.

Project Funding Breakdown:

• Total Estimated Cost: $1.39 billion
• Cost Per Person: Approximately $30,888
• Federal Share (65%): $903.5 million, to be covered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
• Local Share (35%): $486.5 million, to be covered by the Southeastern Water Conservancy District.

Key Partnerships and Support Mechanisms:

1. Federal Government: The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is the primary funding partner. Bipartisan efforts by Colorado’s congressional delegation are underway to secure favorable loan terms, such as reduced interest rates and extended repayment periods.
2. State of Colorado: The state has committed significant financial support, including $30 million in grants from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and a $90 million loan. An additional $30 million in federal grants is available through the Colorado Water and Power Development Authority.
3. Local Governance: The Southeastern Water Conservancy District is overseeing construction and managing the local financial contribution.
4. Hardship Declaration: There are plans to seek a hardship declaration from the federal government due to the region’s low income and shrinking population, which could result in the federal government covering the remaining local costs.

Project Timeline and Implementation

After decades of delays, the project is now under construction, though its completion remains years away.

Historical Milestones:

1. 1962: The AVC is first authorized by Congress.
2. 2009: Federal law is changed to establish a 65% federal cost share, making the project more financially feasible.
3. 2020: The project receives $28 million in federal funding to begin final design and construction.
4. April 28, 2023: Officials break ground on the AVC after six decades of waiting.
5. August 2025 (Projected): The first six-mile reach of the pipeline is scheduled for completion.

Full delivery of water to all 39 communities is a phased process, with towns farther east expected to wait up to a decade or more for connection.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues that are directly and indirectly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis identifies the following relevant SDGs:

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The core problem highlighted is water contamination with toxic elements that pose severe health risks to the population.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The article’s central theme is the decades-long struggle of communities in the Lower Arkansas Valley to gain access to safe and clean drinking water.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: The solution to the water crisis is a massive, long-awaited infrastructure project, the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which involves significant engineering, construction, and investment.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article emphasizes the economic disparity of the affected region, noting its low household income compared to the state average, and the challenges of funding a critical project for a small, economically disadvantaged population.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The provision of clean water is a fundamental basic service necessary for the health, safety, and economic viability of the 39 towns and communities mentioned.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The project’s realization depends on a complex partnership involving multiple levels of government (federal, state, local) and bipartisan political support to secure funding and affordable repayment terms.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific details in the article, the following targets under the identified SDGs are relevant:

1. Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.
   • The article is entirely focused on this target. It describes how the May Valley Water Association’s “groundwater-based system struggles with radium contamination” and how the Arkansas Valley Conduit (AVC) is expected to “get clean water from Pueblo Reservoir” to 1,500 customers in May Valley and a total of 45,000 people across 39 communities. The issue of affordability is a major concern, with the article noting the project’s high cost and the potential for water bills to “double.”
2. Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
   • The article directly links contaminated water to severe health risks. It states that local wells “showed a range of toxic elements, including naturally occurring radium and selenium,” which “can cause severe health problems including bone cancer, with long-term exposure to radium, and heart attacks and lung issues with selenium.” The AVC project is the primary method for eliminating these health threats.
3. Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure… to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.
   • The Arkansas Valley Conduit is a prime example of such infrastructure. It is described as a “$1.39 billion pipeline” designed to provide a reliable, long-term water source. The article highlights the goal of supporting human well-being by removing a “cloud that lies over these small towns.” The focus on affordability and equity is evident in the extensive discussion of federal and state grants, loans, and efforts to reduce interest rates for the low-income region.
4. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services…
   • Access to safe drinking water is a critical basic service. The article notes that 17 of the 39 participating districts are “under state enforcement orders to permanently remove contaminants,” demonstrating a current lack of this basic service. The project aims to rectify this, providing a foundation for community stability and future economic opportunities, as one official states, “Better water creates new opportunities.”
5. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships…
   • The article details a multi-decade, multi-level partnership. It involves the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (federal), the Southeastern Water Conservancy District (regional operator), and state entities like the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Colorado Water and Power Development Authority. It also highlights a “bipartisan effort” from Colorado’s congressional delegation to secure funding, showcasing a robust public partnership to achieve a common goal.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• For Target 6.1 (Safe and Affordable Drinking Water):
  • Indicator: The number of people and communities with access to contaminated water. The article states the project will serve “45,000 people” across “39 communities.” A key metric is the status of the “17 of the 39 districts and towns” that are currently “under state enforcement orders to permanently remove contaminants.” Progress can be measured by how many of these orders are lifted upon connection to the conduit.
  • Indicator: The cost of water for consumers. The article mentions the potential for water bills to “double,” making the final cost to residents a key indicator of affordability.
• For Target 3.9 (Reduce Illness from Contamination):
  • Indicator: The presence of specific contaminants in the water supply. The article names “radium and selenium” as the primary contaminants. Progress is measured by the elimination of these “toxic elements” from the drinking water provided to the communities, thereby removing the associated health risks like “bone cancer” and “heart attacks.”
• For Target 9.1 (Infrastructure Development):
  • Indicator: Total financial investment in infrastructure. The article provides precise figures: a total project cost of “$1.39 billion,” with the federal government’s share at “$903.5 million” and the local district’s share at “$486.5 million.” It also specifies state commitments of “$60M in grants, $90M optional loans.”
  • Indicator: Physical completion of the infrastructure. The article mentions a timeline, with the “first reach of the AVC pipeline (6 miles)” to be completed by “Aug. 2025” and water delivery to some towns by “2027.”
• For Target 17.17 (Partnerships):
  • Indicator: The dollar value of financial commitments from various partners. The article explicitly breaks down the funding sources, such as the “$500 million in cash” from Congress, the “$30 million in federal grant money” from the Colorado Water and Power Development Authority, and the proposed 65%/35% federal/local cost-share agreement. This quantifies the scale and success of the partnership.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: coloradosun.com