WSP11206

• File Number: 8126.300
• Description: Arkansas River Coordinating Committee - Correspondence
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 1/12/1995
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Frank Milenskis Opinions
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

/'

,

1/Z/95"
J,)r';~-.l- do<-

Frank Milenski's Opinions

I read with great interest Arkansas River Coordinating Committee.

a, Determined sources of available water supplies.
b. Reviewability of water users to pay.
c. Consider administrative structures where by water could be
acquired.

First of all I would point out we need to know how much water will
be involved.

1. Is the state going to change the 3 day free pumping rule.

2. How much augmentation will be required.

3. The ability to pay for the price of augmentation depends on:
a. How much is required to be purchased and what price,

4.

At what level is the Kansas demands to be met.
a. Master says 15,000 a.f. pre compact pumping.
zero post compact pumping.

Probably

S. All pumping of ground water has to be put on t.P of the table
of what it actually is:
a. Lama
b. Water Protective assn
c. New pumpers at Manzanola
d. independent

I do think the state has got the obligation to release all pumping
figures. (As soon as possible>

6, Recreation: The Great Plains of3 reservoirs should be put on
hold until we find out what the remedy will be in the Kansas-
Colorado case.

7. It will be some time until Kansas demands or the Master remedy
phase will come into being. violation of Article IV of the
Compact.

8. Colorado has to reduce days of free pumping NOW. Farmers are
entitled to know NOW.

9. Is Colorado going to protect the priority system?

10. This being a priority rule state, Why are the state spokesmen
Hell bent to keep pumps in business at whose expense.
~ .
11. The water Kansas will get at the state Line is going to be wet
water (river water). Is Kansas going to be satisfied with any
post compact pumping?

12, I t is my opinion that the advisory commi t tee are just spinning