|
MRK Testimony http: / /resourcescommittee .house.gov /107cong /water /2002mar19/kassen.htm
<br /> Colorado's political leaders now recognize that this approach to water may have suited 19th
<br /> century miners and ranchers, but is inappropriate for Colorado's current and future residents and
<br /> economy. Recognizing that fish and people need water flowing in the state's rivers, Colorado's
<br /> legislature is now considering improving the program for protecting flowing rivers.
<br /> By contrast, when considering its actions, the federal government not only may, but also is required to,
<br /> consider the needs of fish, wildlife, endangered species, recreation, local economies and a host of other
<br /> interests affected by water projects. However, the tools federal agencies have available for protecting
<br /> rivers in the West have been little used in areas affected by this project. First, the federal agencies with
<br /> lands reserved from the public domain can obtain federal reserved rights dating to when their lands were
<br /> withdrawn; however, there are no federal reserved rights in the Arkansas River Basin, and none pending
<br /> that would help protect the Arkansas River between Pueblo Reservoir and Fountain Creek. Similarly,
<br /> some federal agencies, in the context of exercising their administrative authorities, can impose bypass
<br /> flow requirements, for example, through permits; however, there are few operating in the Arkansas
<br /> River Basin.
<br /> As part of the changes H.R. 3881 seeks, the legislation should ensure that the Bureau considers how best
<br /> to ensure protection of the flow levels that will restore the Arkansas River consistent with the Corps'
<br /> Legacy Project. TU urges an amendment to H.R. 3881 to direct the Bureau not to enter into contracts
<br /> unless they allow release of flow levels to the affected reach of the Arkansas sufficient to establish and
<br /> maintain a wild fishery.
<br /> The Bureau's role throughout the West was initially to reclaim the arid lands. While early Bureau
<br /> projects focused on irrigation, and to a lesser extent municipal use, over time the purposes of Bureau
<br /> projects have expanded. More recent projects, including the Fry-Ark, include power generation, as well
<br /> as recreation and fish and wildlife protection or enhancement. As described in the testimony from the
<br /> City of Pueblo, the Fry -Ark project enabled better use of the fertile lands in the lower Arkansas River
<br /> Basin, as well as provided these other benefits.
<br /> The irony, of course, is that, even with the Fry-Ark project, the future of irrigated agriculture remains
<br /> hazy. Today, the farm economy depends on substantial federal subsidies. In addition, Colorado has
<br /> obligations under the Arkansas River Compact to deliver certain quantities of water downstream to the
<br /> State of Kansas. Making those compact deliveries has meant some curtailment of agricultural rights on
<br /> the Colorado side of the border. In addition, as municipal growth takes increasing amounts of water to
<br /> sustain, agricultural water users are hard pressed to hang on to their valuable water rights.
<br /> Nowhere is there a better example of this phenomenon than in Otero County, Colorado, located in the
<br /> Lower Arkansas River Basin. There, the City of Aurora, one of the same municipalities that would
<br /> benefit greatly from the re- operations and enlargement that H.R. 3881 contemplates, bought out most of
<br /> the water users along the Rocky Ford Ditch. Acquiring agricultural water rights is often the cheapest
<br /> way for thirsty cities to enlarge their water supplies. The effects of this purchase and the transfer of the
<br /> water rights out of the county and Arkansas River Basin on the local economy and community have
<br /> been significant.
<br /> One of the many conditions imposed on Aurora's transfer of these water rights was that the City
<br /> would have to demonstrate conservation of water within its service area. Certainly, given the huge
<br /> burden that a basin of origin shoulders when a remote water user diverts water out of the basin, this type
<br /> of condition is not only reasonable but also imperative. Yet, H.R. 3881 is silent on the need for those
<br /> who would benefit from the transfer of water out of the Arkansas or Colorado Rivers to conserve the
<br /> water removed. The bill should direct those in the basins of use to ensure that the water transferred is
<br /> conserved to the maximum extent possible. A particularly galling example is diverting water
<br /> out -of- basin, drying up recreational and environmental treasures, for delivery to subdivisions with
<br /> covenants that favor —or even require — blue grass lawns (that demand profligate watering). Precious
<br /> out -of -basin water should be used most efficiently, and not for watering city sidewalks or landscape
<br /> unsuitable for an arid climate.
<br /> Finally, the Bureau must determine how to meet the fish and wildlife purposes of the Fry-Ark Project
<br /> 6 of 8 3/20/02 10:18 AM
<br />
|