WSP11938 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'. . . . , . I . I . . . I . . . . I I I Section ill D of the 1980 Operating Plan requires that the transfer of water must occur at the instant of physical arrival in the reservoir. Colorado believes that there is a legitimate reason for delaying the distribution and that this delay has no adverse impact on Kansas in most years and has proposed a compromise in the form of the draft resolution discussed above under Issue #20, It is recommended that further efforts to address this issue separately from #20, above, be tabled pending further consideration of the draft resolution. Criteria for detenninin!! Section ill stora!!e durin!! the Winter Stora!!e Prol!l"am #22 Kansas's position is that the criteria used by Colorado to determine a division of the inflows into John Martin Reservoir during the period of the Winter Water Storage Program (November IS to March IS of each Compact year) fails to adhere to the criteria established in the 1980 Operating Plan. Colorado's position is that the 1980 Operating Plans does not provide criteria for the division. The 1980 Operating Plan clearly authorizes the concurrent storage of inflows during the period of winter storage as inflows to conservation storage and "other water", See Section I D (definition of "Inflows"). Therefore, a division of inflows to the reservoir during such periods must be made, The procedure to make this division has been consistently used throughout the period that Section III of the 1980 Operating Plan has been in existence, Since the Special Master concluded that Kansas did not prove that the Winter Water Storage Program causes material Stateline depletions, and Kansas's exception to that finding was overruled by the United States Supreme Court, Colorado is very reluctant to make any changes to the procedures used in the administration ofthat program, For this reason, this issue has been characterized as a legal issue, This should not be understood as an absolute refusal by Colorado to consider any alternative procedure, Colorado is willing to investigate and consider alternatives that may be more appropriate. In this respect, this issue has been categorized as a technical issue. It should be noted that the Colorado Water Court decree (84CWI79) approving the Winter Water Storage Program contains the following term and condition: Ifin the opinion of the Division Engineer, acting as the operation secretary of the Arkansas River Compact Administration, the winter inflow quantity to the John Martin Reservoir conservation pool in the winter period significantly departs from the 1950-1975 winter inflow quantity, he will advise the winter storage chairman, who shall convene the Board of Trustees to make findings as to the cause of such departure from historic patterns, Winter water that is delivered to John Martin Reservoir for storage in accounts in John Martin Reservoir shall not be included in the inflow quantity to the John Martin Reservoir conservation pool. - 9 -