Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />'~S'" <br />10 '( <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />While it is not our intent to make interpretation of the Arkansas River <br />Compact, however, oecause the CjJestion of injury to downstream users is <br />inseparao1e from the compact, it is necessary to make certain assumptions <br />about the meanin~ of the compact. The principle assulT4Jtion is that the <br />corapact doe s no t proh ibi t changes in the use and regulation of water withi n <br />tile State of Colorado, provided such action does not materially deplete <br />tIle 4uantity of \later available to the users in tile State of Kansas. Under <br />tllis assumption, the ArKansas River Compact, by itself, would not prohibit <br />Colorado from storin~ waters of the Purgatoire River that had historically been <br />applied to lands wittlin the Trinidad Project, provided such storage is <br />carried out in a manner that does not deplete the inflows to John f'1artin <br />Reservoir. <br /> <br />Based on the above, th~ Bureau of Reclamation concludes that the Trinidad <br />Operaj;in!j Principles must provide for optimum use of water within the <br />Project area consistent witn th~ protection of downstream water rights. To <br />tile extent that tile Operating Principles do not provide for optimum use of <br />the water or do not protect tile rights of downstream users, tne Operating <br />Principles must be amencled. Pursuant to Kansas Condition 2, any proposed <br />amendment to tne Operating Principles illJst be submitted to the State of <br />Kansas and many others for review and approval; however, Kansas is ob1i- <br />~ated to approve any proposed amendment that wi 11 not cause "materi a1 dep1 e- <br />tion" in tile context of the Arkansas River Compact. The State of Colorado <br />and the Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District must diligently comply <br />with the tenilS and conditions of the Operating Principles in effect at tne <br />time. To tne extent that tne terms and conditions of the Operating <br />Principles are not specific, the studies and analysis used in developing <br />the principles or amendments thereto must also be used as the basis of <br />interpretation. These conclusions provide the basis for the following <br />discussions of the studies reported in tnis cnapter. <br /> <br />The studies identifiecl as Case 1, Case 2 and Case 3 (see Table 4) provide <br />some llsefu 1 info rma tion on the impacts of the transfer of water from the <br />Model Right and the storage of winter water under the direct flow rights as <br />they actually occurred during the 1979-84 review period. In considering <br />tne results of these three studies, it must be remertbered that a substan- <br />tial part of tile ProJect lands were riot irrigated during IOOSt of tne study <br />periocl. <br /> <br />Case 3 Shows the difference in actual inflow to JoM Martin Reservoir, as <br />compared to tne inflow that wou 1 d Ilave occ urred had water not been trans- <br />ferred out of the ~Iodel Rignt and had the winter water been cnarged to tile <br />Muae1 Rignt. Of tnese three stuaies, Case 3 best represents the actual <br />impacts resulting from tile aepartures from tile intent of tile Operating <br />Princip1 es. <br /> <br />Case 2 sl10ws the difference in the actual John Martin Reservoir inflow as <br />compared to the inflow tnat wou'id have occurred flad the full 19,717 acres <br />of Trinioad ProJect lands been irri\jatea and had the transfer out of the <br />Model Ri\jht not taken place and had the winter storage been cllarged to the <br />Model Ri!jllt. Case 2 represents the impacts to the inflow to John Martin <br />Reservoir uncler the assumption that the compact does not prohibit tile storage <br />of water that otherwise would have been applied to the project lands. <br /> <br />Case is a refinement of Case 2 in tnat it is not based on the <br /> <br />25 <br />