Hearing on HR 3881: Testimony of Steve Arveschoug

Home Browse Search

7. The Arkansas River Compact -- Throughout the process of developing the PSOP we involved local citizens and organizations through the Storage Study Committee decision - making process. In addition to this committee process, all of our Storage Study Committee meetings were open to the public, and we maintained a mailing list of individuals and entities that had an interest in the outcome of the PSOP. The state of Kansas was included on that mailing list. They had the opportunity to review and comment on our Preferred Storage Options Plan Report, both a draft report and final report. We have also kept the Arkansas River Compact Commission fully informed of our plans. The PSOP Report considered impacts on flows to the Kansas - Colorado state line as part of the analysis. A computer simulation model of the Fryingpan- Arkansas (Fry-Ark) Project and the proposed storage alternatives was developed to analyze each of the storage alternatives with the projected storage requests. The model includes Fry-Ark Project water and storage facilities, the storage enlargements being proposed, and the existing water rights involved in the storage proposals. Reservoir and streamflow impacts were investigated from the headwaters downstream to the Avondale gage and Lake Meredith, including Fountain Creek. Impacts at the Avondale gage show little variation from historical streamflows. The average annual streamflow is expected to increase zero to two percent over historical streamflows, depending upon the storage scenario. This small change is because streamflow at the Avondale gage is primarily demand driven, and demands downstream of the Avondale gage are not shown to change for future conditions. Based on the modeling results, the hydrologic analysis concluded that there would be no negative hydrologic impacts on state line flows. In addition, the state of Kansas has previously raised concerns regarding how the PSOP may impact on the Arkansas River Compact. Our understanding of the Arkansas River Compact is that it did not apportion the unusable flows of the Arkansas River Basin. As Article IV. D of the Arkansas River Compact states "the waters of the Arkansas River ... shall not be materially depleted in usable quantity or availability for use to the water users in Colorado and Kansas under this compact by such future developments or construction." (Emphasis added.) Instead of apportioning unusable flows, the Compact provided that it was not intended to impede or prevent future beneficial development of additional water that was unusable when the Compact was signed and, in fact, Article IV. D expressly approves such development. While the opportunity to develop additional, heretofore unusable waters of the Arkansas River above John Martin Reservoir is very limited, it is not impeded by the Compact. We are not aware of any provision in the Compact that entitles Kansas to a share of the benefits if additional storage in Colorado develops previously unusable flows. While implementation of the PSOP may allow for some development of infrequent storage opportunities for additional water that was unusable when the Compact 11