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
Because of the work that TU and others have put into improving the value of the Arkansas River
resource through Pueblo, TU believes that it is imperative to protect flows in this reach of the river.
IMPACTS OF THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR RE- OPERATION AND POTENTIAL
ENLARGEMENT
Passage of H.R. 3881 would authorize an immediate re- operation of Pueblo Reservoir to enable
storage and transport of additional water and would fund studies to look at enlarging Pueblo Reservoir.
The Arkansas River is a highly over - appropriated river in a semi -arid region. Because Colorado adheres
to the prior appropriation system of water allocation, the state administers water rights in the order of
their seniority. The municipalities that support H.R. 3881, including the Cities of Colorado Springs and
Aurora, do so because the re- operation and enlargement of Pueblo Reservoir will increase their ability to
make "exchanges" of water upstream into Pueblo Reservoir that will supply their burgeoning
populations' needs. (In an "exchange," a water user diverts water from a different location that was
originally decreed and then supplies water from a different source to those diverters whom the change
would otherwise adversely affect.) The current operating regime and storage capacity of the Reservoir
limit the quantity of water that these cities can now exchange within —and outside —the basin. , (Aurora
sits in the Platte River Basin adjacent to, but north of, the Arkansas River Basin; Colorado Springs
straddles Fountain Creek, a major tributary of the Arkansas.) As a result, they are not able to exercise
some of their decreed water rights. The re- operation of Pueblo Reservoir allowed by H.R. 3881 would
enable additional exchanges to occur now; the proposed enlargement would further expand the —
beneficiaries' ability to make new exchanges.
There are two significant practical effects that would result from passage of H.R. 3881, as introduced, on
aquatic ecosystems. The first is a substantial decrease in flows in the Arkansas River below Pueblo
Reservoir through the City of Pueblo. Historic summer flows in this reach of the river are typically in
excess of 2000 cfs, with a minimum of close to 500 cfs. With the enlargement and re- operation that
H.R. 3881 would set in motion, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the entities
who intend to store additional water in Pueblo Reservoir commit only to a voluntary "flow management
program" that will "target" a flow of 100 cfs in this reach - a few percent of typical summer flows and
potentially an 80% decrease from the historic summer low flow condition, with no guarantee of even
that amount. Despite that existing winter flows are insufficient to support a wild fishery now, H.R.
3881's increased storage and target minimum would reduce them to the low end of their range (100 cfs).
The second major category of adverse impacts is to the Colorado River basin through increased
transmountain diversions. The course that H.R. 3881 sets appears to allow for increases in
transmountain diversions, using the existing infrastructure of the Fry-Ark project as well as the proposed
expansion. The Fryingpan River is a lively tributary to the Roaring Fork River, which is itself a
tributary to the mighty Colorado River. 69,200 acre feet of water, a large portion of the native flows of
the Fryingpan River, cross the continental divide for the Fry-Ark project now, along with additional
water from non - federal projects, such as the Homestake Project that Colorado Springs and Aurora
jointly own and operate. When Congress authorized the original project, Congress provided mitigation
for the loss of native flows on the Colorado River side of the divide by constructing Ruedi Reservoir,
which provides 100,000 acre feet of use to west slope water users for a variety of purposes. The
expansion and re- operation proposed in H.R. 3881 has the potential to increase Colorado River
depletions beyond the quantity that could be diverted for non - project purposes without the infrastructure
of the Fry-Ark Project and beyond the quantity for which Congress originally provided mitigation. The
result is likely to be an expanded transmountain diversion, without any provision for additional
- mitigation for the basin of origin, and certainly no mitigation for the adverse impact to the basin of
origin's aquatic resources.
The complexity of accounting for water transfers within the Arkansas River Basin, as well as within the
Fry-Ark project itself, makes it difficult to determine at this time what the actual effects of expansion
and re- operation may be. Doing so should be a major focus of the analysis of this proposed project
during its environmental review. However, additional transmountain diversions out of the Colorado
4 of 8 3/20/02 10:18 AM