Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c:;) <br />C'l <br />N <br />~ <br />~ <br />W <br /> <br />Mr. David Brenn and Mr. James Rogers <br />December I, 1999 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />prefers to use inflow based accounting which is consistent with procedures used in <br />the past and with those utilized at all other times when spills are not occurring. The <br />Assistant Operations Secretary has not conceded this point. <br /> <br />It has been the practice of the Operations Secretary to assign all evaporation charges <br />to the flood pool during times of spill. The Assistant Operations Secretary has <br />correctly noted that this is not the procedure specified by Section II F of the 1980 <br />Operating Plan, but has suggested an alternative accounting method which the <br />Operations Secretary considers to be incorrect. The Operations Secretary is prepared <br />to demonstrate that the procedure prescribed by Section II F of the 1980 Operating <br />Plan, when correctly applied, produces the same result as that traditionally used. <br />Again, this should not be an issue. <br /> <br />Unless these concerns can be resolved in advance, it is suggested that they be <br />included on the agenda of the previously recommended special meeting of the <br />Operations Committee. <br /> <br />. No substantial amount of time has been devoted to discussion of concerns related to <br />the operation of Pueblo Reservoir, the associated "adjustments" during times of spill, <br />or the resultant differences in date of conservation storage evacuation between the <br />two sets of accounting. <br /> <br />As reported to the Administration last year, this is the rnajor issue to be addressed, <br />however meaningful discussions on this will be aided by disposing of as many issues <br />of lesser significance as possible. Therefore, it is recommended that the agenda of the <br />previously recommended special meeting of the Operations Committee also include a <br />review briefing of how such operations were treated in the Operations Secretary's <br />accounting for 1998 and 1999 so that the committee can be better informed to direct <br />further proceedings to appropriately address this issue. <br /> <br />. Similarly, little progress has been made toward the identification or resolution of <br />issues that may be of concern to the Assistant Operations Secretary regarding the <br />1995 and 1997 reports of the Operations Secretary which have not been accepted by <br />Administration. A preliminary alternative accounting of operations for 1995 has been <br />provided by the Assistant Operations Secretary which is believed to show the effect <br />of some of the same propositions that are currently unresolved which have been <br />raised in connection with the 1998 report. It has generally been agreed to defer <br />attention from the 1995 report in the hope that resolution of some of these issues will <br />simplify the process. No specific concerns or criticisms regarding the 1997 <br />Operations Secretary's report have been provided. <br />