WSP11269

• File Number: 8142.100
• Description: Trinidad Project - Studies - Operation Studies
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 1/1/1996
• Author: CWCB
• Title: Trinidad Background Info Notebook Part 5
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

-
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I.
I
.
~
,
I

.

lSGS

remained in storage at the end of the water year to the joint-use pool.
This transfer allowed the District to store up to the full 20,000 acre-feet
of the Model storage right during the subsequent year. The Colorado
Division 2 Engineer also permitted the District to store inflow to Trinidad
Reservoir during the nonirrigation season (winter) under the direct flow
priorities of the Project ditches and. did not account for the storage of
this water under the Model storage right. The State of Kansas officials
have alleged that these practices are a violation of the operating prin-
ciples and deplete the inflow to John Martin Reservoir.

The Trinidad Project Operating Principles do not specifically state how
these water rights are to be administered. However, Article IV.D_l{b),
"noninterference with downstream water rights," provides that "Reservoir
i nf] ow in excess of the amount stored under the transferred Mode 1 ri ght may
be detained in the reservoir at such times as John Martin is reasonably
expected to spi 11 ; .. ." Thi s art i c 1 e strong ly suggests that on 1y water
stored under the Model right or stored when John Martin is spilling or
expected to spill may be included in the District's water supply. This
article appears to preclude winter storage under the direct flow rights
unless such storage is also credited against the 20,000 acre-feet of
storage provi ded under the Mode 1 ri ght. Th i s pos i t ion is a 1 so supported by
the fact that condition 3, page 6 of the 1961 study specifically provides
that winter flows be stored under the Model right.

Prior to the development of the operating principles, the Bureau performed
operation studies which were intended, in part, to demonstrate that the
Project would not, in itself, cause additional depletion to the water
available to downstream users. These operation studies were based on the
assumption that any water remaining under the Model right would be included
in the fo 11 owi ng year I sent i t lement to storage and that the wi nter storage
would be stored under the Model right. The studies concluded that the
Project would not, on an average annual basis, cause additional depletion
to the inflow to John Martin Reservoir.

From a review of House Document No. 325 and the 1961 and 1964 studies,
there is little doubt that the Bureau of Reclamation personnel formulating
the irrigation components of the project did not intend that water stored
under the Model right be transferred out of the Model Right or that winter
water be stored under any right but the Model right.

Since the operation studies were used to establish that the Project would
not cause damage to the downstream users and cons i deri ng that these studi es
provided the foundation from which the operating principles were developed,
there is a strong argument that they are the proper instruments to use in
interpreting the operating principles when such interpretation is
necessary. Accordingly, we conclude that the transfer of water from the
Model right and the storage of winter water under any right except the Model
right differs from the intent of the operating principles.

Having concluded that the transfer of water out of the Model right and the
storage of winter water under the direct flow rights is a departure from
the intent of the operating principles, the next question is what impact do
these practices have on the inflow to John Martin Reservoir.

11

I