The Associated Press file Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., speaks before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally at the Gaylord Rockies Resort Convention Center, Friday, Oct. 11, 2024, in Aurora, Colo. Congress failed Thursday to override President Donald Trump’s veto of a Colorado water project that has been in the works for over 60 years. It’s one of two back-to-back vetoes, the first of his second term. But Colorado Republican 4th Congressional District U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert — known for her fierce MAGA loyalties — still deserves credit for putting her constituents first on the matter. The project concerns the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a 130-mile pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir to Lamar that is already under construction and will provide clean drinking water to 39 communities in the lower Arkansas Valley. “This isn’t over,” Boebert tweeted in response to the veto on Dec. 30. In a separate statement, she didn’t mince words — or hold back biting sarcasm. Boebert noted it was “a completely non-controversial, bipartisan bill” that unanimously passed both houses of Congress. “(N)othing says ‘America First’ like denying clean drinking water to 50,000 people in Southeast Colorado,” she wrote, “many of whom enthusiastically voted for him in all three elections.” Boebert added that she “must have missed the rally” where Trump promised to derail water infrastructure projects. “My bad, I thought the campaign was about lowering costs and cutting red tape. But hey, if this administration wants to make its legacy blocking projects that deliver water to rural Americans; that’s on them.” Game. Set. Match. Let’s be real: Boebert is absolutely right. There is no legitimate basis for scrapping a bipartisan bill for a clean-water project that dates back to President John F. Kennedy in 1962 and was finally funded in 2010, with a $500 million loan from the federal government. As The Denver Gazette reported, current federal law requires local water providers and the state to cover 35% of the cost. The project now carries an estimated $1.39 billion price tag — more than double earlier estimates. At its core, H.R. 131 adjusts the repayment terms to make it possible for rural communities to afford the project — extending the number of years local water providers have to cover their share from 50 to 100 years. It waives interest on the loans while incurring no new federal spending. Colorado podcast host Erin Brantley summed it up on X: Should the feds “act as a rigid bank or as an infrastructure partner?” “We’ve signed off on spending with no repayment and for far less vital projects,” Brantley tweeted. “This wasn’t fiscal responsibility — it was cost-shifting onto towns with no tax base and no alternatives.” She’s right. It’s appropriate to hesitate over the federal government funding local projects. But sometimes, it’s the only vehicle to support communities that lack the resources for critical infrastructure needs. Simply put, this isn’t wasteful pork barrel spending. The question comes down to WHY Trump vetoed the bill. Boebert has suggested that retaliatory politics are at play. “I sincerely hope this veto has nothing to do with political retaliation for calling out corruption and demanding accountability,” she wrote. Could the president be targeting Boebert, the bill’s sponsor? She was one of four House members to push for releasing the Epstein files, including a discharge petition, to the praise of many MAGA voters and the chagrin of Trump himself. Boebert seems to think so, retweeting a post from 9News anchor Kyle Clark stating, “Boebert recently challenged Trump to force the release of the Epstein files.” Others think it’s because Trump issued a symbolic pardon of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who’s serving nine years for breaching her own election system in an elaborate identity-theft scheme. Gov. Jared Polis has rejected the pardon as federal overreach. Trump’s pardon doesn’t apply, anyway: Peters’ convictions were state crimes, not federal ones. Plus, the pardon covers offenses “related to election integrity and security” — yet none of the felonies that landed Peters in state prison concern election tampering. Her election-related convictions were misdemeanors, for which she already served time in county jail. Maybe it’s both Epstein and Peters. Either way, the pattern is troubling. Colorado has recently experienced other signs of alleged retaliation. The Trump administration singled out Colorado to freeze childcare funding, without notifying the state ahead of time. It’s also closing the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and cancelling hundreds of millions in energy grants. The motivations seem like a mixed bag. The administration has a crystal-clear agenda regarding climate change and an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and those canceled ventures seem in-step with the shift. Plus, Colorado’s own Chris Wright is his energy secretary. Yet the water project seems particularly ripe for claims of retaliation against Colorado — and possibly Boebert herself. Consider Trump’s other veto: a Republican-sponsored bill supporting flood protections for Florida’s Miccosukee Tribe, apparently vetoed because the tribe criticized Trump on immigration. Are both vetoes part of a pattern? By standing her ground under intense political pressure, Boebert is doing right by her constituents. The veto deserves to be overridden. “Americans deserve leadership that puts people over politics,” she said. In this case, Lauren Boebert has done exactly that — and she deserves major kudos. Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and longtime local talk-radio host. Reach Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter. ...read more read less