Testimony by Melinda Kassen

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

MRK Testimony http: / /resourcescommittee .house.gov /107cong /water /2002mar19/kassen.htm
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am honored today to be here to
discuss Trout Unlimited's interests in, and opposition to H.R. 3881, a bill to authorize the re- operation
of, and a study to enlarge, Pueblo Reservoir and other Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau)
Fryingpan - Arkansas Project (Fry-Ark) facilities. I am the director of the Colorado Water Project for
Trout Unlimited; my resume and disclosure form are attached to this testimony.
INTRODUCTION
Trout Unlimited (TU) is a national non - profit organization with 125,000 members nationally and
over 8,200 in Colorado. TU's Southern Colorado Greenback chapter, based in Pueblo, CO, has
approximately 230 members. TU's mission is to conserve, protect and restore Coldwater fisheries and
their habitats. The goal of the Colorado Water Project is to restore and maintain stream flows for
healthy coldwater fisheries and to increase meaningful public participation in decisions regarding water
allocation.
Both TU's Colorado state council and its local chapter have shown a longstanding and active interest
in restoring the coldwater portion of the Arkansas River. For example, TU has been involved in projects
to protect the Upper Arkansas River from high flows associated with increased transmountain diversions
made possible by the Fry-Ark Project. TU was party to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
relicensing process for the Salida Hydro plant on the South Arkansas River. Another area TU chapter
has worked with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Colorado Division of State Parks in
their partnership for the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area via the Citizens Task Force, to bridge the
gap between different groups of recreational users. In partnership with the BLM, TU volunteers have
established angler access points along the river. TU has been involved in numerous projects to restore
greenback cutthroat trout within the Arkansas River basin. Local TU volunteers have contributed more
than 4000 hours a year in conservation and education programs for the Arkansas River Basin. National
TU's Colorado Water Project also recently released a report, DRY LEGACY (copies attached and
available at Dry Legacy or www.cotrout.org) that highlighted low flow problems on the South Fork
Arkansas River and Fooses Creek (one of its tributaries), as well as recommendations for solving the
problem.
In my testimony today, I would like to make three main points:
First, as drafted, H.R. 3881 creates a project that would have significant negative impacts on the City of
Pueblo, the Arkansas River, and the Colorado River basin. Those impacts include both further
degradation of already seriously degraded aquatic ecosystems in two major river basins in Colorado and
a significant reduction of the benefits of an environmental restoration and recreation project, the
Arkansas River Legacy Project, now underway.
Second, because H.R. 3881 is drafted to foreordain some critical components of the project, the bill
effectively blocks meaningful evaluation of the alternatives for the project in the feasibility study and
environmental review. As an example, the bill calls for a target minimum flow below Pueblo dam of
100 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow has already been demonstrated to be grossly inadequate for a
healthy fishery, but because that number is in the bill, the Bureau's ability to determine and require an
adequate flow would be highly circumscribed. As a result, designing the project to minimize impacts
and crafting appropriate mitigation will not occur.
- Third, Colorado's water management system is complicated, with complex and difficult problems.
Simple solutions, such as the storage capacity increase proposed in H.R. 3881, may address one
interest's issues, but do not necessarily lead to a better situation for all affected interests. As this
committee is wrestling with in the case of California's CALFED legislation, increasing storage may be
part of the solution, but it must be integrated into a more comprehensive approach to solving the
regional problems. H.R. 3881 does not even begin to take that more comprehensive approach, and
therefore fails to advance an overall resolution.
2 of 8 3/20/02 10:18 AN'