Testimony of David L. Pope

• Description: Briefing Papers H.R. 3881
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 3/19/2002
• Author: David L. Pope
• Title: Testimony of David L. Pope
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

http : / /resourcescommittee.house.gov/ 107cong /water /2002mar19 /pope.htm
•
Increases in sulfate have adverse effects on irrigation and other water uses. Dr. Donald Whittemore of
the Kansas Geological Survey recently conducted an extensive study of water quality in the Arkansas
River basin in Southwest Kansas. He found the concentration of sulfate in the low flow regime doubled
between 1906 and 1973. This study also looked at the concentration of sulfate data available for 1964
through 1970 and compared it to the 1987 through 1999 period. Sulfate concentrations continued to
increase over the range of flows from the earlier period to the later period. One reason for this is the
increased water consumption in Colorado.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has reviewed the sulfate concentrations over
different flow regimes as well. Sulfate concentrations are higher at low river flows. Sulfate
concentrations vary during higher river flows, but are on average less than low flow concentrations.
Reduced flows of the Arkansas River at the state line would mean increased sulfate concentration in the
river water.
Currently, Arkansas River flows at the state line are classified as high to very high for salinity hazards to
field crops. Any additional increases in salinity will only decrease the usability of the water supplies
Kansas receives. Water users in Kansas routinely assess the quality of the water available at their
headgate when deciding whether to divert water to the fields.
Water quality in the Arkansas River system is invariably linked to the quantity of water available, and
reduction in the state line flow may cause a further deterioration of water quality. The build -up of
contaminants is partially flushed when flows increase, but these high- flushing flows are some of the very
flows that are proposed to be stored under the PSOP. Colorado has failed to provide data or analyses that
show the proposed changes will not materially reduce the quality of the water at the state line.
Summary
Kansas and Colorado have been in dispute concerning the water supply available in the Arkansas River
Basin for almost as long as they have been states. Colorado has the benefit of being the upstream state,
which means that Kansas must be ever vigilant and ensure protection from any enterprise in Colorado
that may affect its water supply. Colorado has continued development efforts without regard to Kansas'
expressed concerns, as evidenced by lack of reference to Kansas in this legislation. The proposed
legislation would allow further development upstream of Kansas without regard for present uses in
Kansas. There is no additional water available for the uses proposed in this legislation. Its purposes can
not be achieved without negative effects on the quality and quantity of the water on which Kansas relies.
David L. Pope, P.E., Chief Engineer, Division of Water Resources, Kansas Department of Agriculture,
109 SW 9th Street, 2nd Floor, Topeka, KS. 66612 -1283, Telephone [phone], Fax [phone].
# # ##
4 of 4 3/20/02 10:19 AM