Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />'b'itl/<. IYI ,Ii<, <br /> <br />ARKANSA~ RIVER COMPACT ADMINISTRATION <br />307 South Fifth Street, Lamar, Colorado 81052 <br />719-336-9696 <br />Chairman and Federal Representative <br /> <br />For Colorado <br />Rodney Kuharich, Denver <br />James G. Rogers, Lamar <br /> <br />Thomas R. Polnton, Las Animas <br /> <br />RECEIVED <br />MAR 2 4 2003 <br /> <br />For Kansas <br />Oavid L Pope, Topeka <br />David A. Brenn, Garden City <br /> <br />Randy HayzleU, Lakin <br /> <br />Robin Jennison, Healy, KS <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> <br />o <br />o <br />w <br />..... <br />..... <br />tv <br /> <br />March 19, 2003 <br /> <br />Mr. Mark Rude <br />Assistant Operations Secretary <br />Arkansas River Compact Administration <br />2508 Johns Street <br />Garden City, Kansas 67846-2804 <br /> <br />Re: Your letter dated March 4, 2003 concerning 2002 transit losses <br /> <br />Dear Mr, Rude; <br /> <br />I am in receipt of the above referenced letter, signed on your behalf by Mr. Salter. This is to <br />advise you that I do not agree with your analysis concerning the quantification of the transit <br />losses assOciated with deliveries of water from Kansas' Section II account in 2002, as it tails to <br />make an approptiate allowance for arrival times as is provided in Section II E. (4) of the <br />Resolution Concerning An Operating Plan For John Martin Reservoir, adopted April 24, 1980, as <br />amended (the Resolution). It is unfortunate that we have not been able to open discussions that <br />will hopefully lead to a procedure that we can both support as being an appropriate method for <br />ma\<ing such determinations, until such a late date. Since we have failed to accomplish, what I <br />believe was our joint intention to hold such discussions, and to fulfill our responsibility to make <br />this determination, I can see no alternative other than to make an independent determination, <br /> <br />Please fmd enclosed revised copies of Table XI.B and XI-C to be included as amendments to the <br />2002 Annual Report of the Operations Secretary, <br /> <br />Based on the data as presented in amended Table XI-B, and using a nominal two day period to <br />allow for the initial arrival of water released for the benefit of Kansas and a period of 7 days from <br />the end of the Kansas account release in order to allow for the arrival of the receding release <br />wave, it may be seen that there was no deficit in the release of Kansas account water during the <br />period May 1, 2002 through May 6, 2002 as measured at the Stateline, Therefore, I have <br />determined that there were no "transit losses" that occurred with respect to this operation, <br /> <br />As one may see from inspection of amended Table XI-C, an appropriate analysis of the Kansas <br />account release that began on June 17,2002 is complicated by the fact that at the point in time <br />when Kansas' Section II account was depleted, at 12:54 p,m. on July 1, 2002, Kansas elected to <br />continue calling for the release of water from a different account, Fortunately, the release rate <br />