President Donald Trump’s veto of a crucial water bill in Colorado has sparked a rare public clash with one of his staunchest allies, Rep. Lauren Boebert, as Fox News reports.
This surprising rift centers on Trump’s rejection of the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, a bipartisan measure designed to ease financial burdens on a pipeline project serving 50,000 people in Southeast Colorado.
For rural homeowners in Boebert’s district, this veto translates to a direct economic hit, as they now face continued interest payments on a project already costing over $249 million, with total estimates reaching $1.3 billion.
The pipeline, first authorized under a 2009 law signed by President Barack Obama, was meant to deliver clean water from the Pueblo Reserve to struggling communities.
The bill, which passed the House with unanimous support via a voice vote in July, aimed to eliminate interest charges and stretch repayment over 100 years.
Instead, Trump’s veto ensures that local taxpayers bear a heavier load, a decision the White House defends as protecting federal funds from subsidizing what they call a state and local responsibility.
“H.R. 131 would continue the failed policies of the past by forcing Federal taxpayers to bear even more of the massive costs of a local water project,” the White House stated.
That justification rings hollow to many conservatives who see rural infrastructure as a federal priority, not a burden to be shrugged off onto struggling communities.
After all, Southeast Colorado isn’t exactly swimming in cash to cover a billion-dollar tab without federal partnership.
Boebert didn’t hold back, calling out the veto as a betrayal of the very voters who backed Trump enthusiastically in his campaigns.
“President Trump decided to veto a completely non-controversial, bipartisan bill that passed both the House and Senate unanimously,” Boebert said. “Why? Because nothing says ‘America First’ like denying clean drinking water to 50,000 people in Southeast Colorado.”
Her sharp words cut to the core of a conservative frustration: when campaign promises of cutting red tape turn into roadblocks for critical projects, whose really being put first?
Boebert also raised eyebrows by suggesting this veto might be payback for her earlier vote to release sensitive Epstein files through the transparency act, opposed by House leadership and initially by Trump himself.
While the White House hasn’t commented on any link between the veto and Boebert’s vote, the timing fuels speculation among conservatives wary of political score-settling over principled stands.
This schism, alongside recent criticism from other Trump allies like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, hints at deeper cracks in a movement that thrives on unity, leaving many to wonder if loyalty is a one-way street.
