Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />the Operations Secretary)], acting under the direct supervision of the Operations <br />Committee, the following duties and functions: , ' . " <br /> <br />Since at least 1998, the Assistant Operations Secretary has submitted reports to <br />the Operations Committee raising concerns regarding the interpretation and <br />implementation of the Resolution Concerning an Operation Plan for John Martin <br />Reservoir as approved April 24, 1980 and as subsequently amended (1980 <br />Operating Plan) by the Operations Secretary, Despite attempts to resolve these <br />concerns through staff level meetings, recorrunendations to the Operations <br />Committee, and meetings of the Operations Committee that were attended by all <br />members of the Administration, very few of these concerns have been resolved, <br />As a result, the Operations Corrunittee has not been able to recorrunend, nor has <br />the Administration been able to approve, any report of the Operations Secretary <br />since Compact Year 1994, <br /> <br />At the most recent meeting of the Operations Corrunittee and the Administration <br />held on May 22Dd and 23n12003, it was my understanding that the Committee <br />requested me to prepare a report describing each remaining issue together with a <br />description of each State's position of each issue, an estimate of the amount of <br />water at stake, a recorrunendation concerning the most appropriate level of <br />authority for resolution of each issue, and, where possible, a specific proposal to <br />resolve each issue, It was recognized that legal assistance might be required to <br />fulfill some of these objectives, Finally, it was my understanding that the report <br />should also include an analysis of the feasibility of periodically alternating the <br />office and associated duties of Operations Secretary between the Division <br />Engineer for Division 2, Colorado Division of Water Resources and the Water <br />Corrnnissioner of the Garden City Field Office, Division of Water Resources, <br />Kansas Department of Agriculture. A status report was requested by September <br />I, 2003, with the final report to be submitted at the next regular meeting of the <br />Administration scheduled in December 2003, <br /> <br />A status report was distributed to the members of the Operating Committee and <br />the Assistant Operations Secretary dated September 2, 2003. See Appendix 3, <br /> <br />Subsequently, I learned that ther;: were differences of opinion as to wr,at the <br />Corrunittee had directed to be accomplished and what its members' expectations <br />were, Clarification provided by the Corrnnittee members encouraged me to <br />recommend a process to more effectively address issues related to interstate <br />administration and operation of the Arkansas River, As a result, this issue <br />became a primary focus of discussion at meetings between staff members of the <br />Colorado Division 2 office and the Kansas Garden City field office held on <br />October 23 and 24, 2003, in Pueblo, Colorado, A memorandum summarizing this <br />meeting was prepared and circulated among the Corrunittee members and <br />participants <br /> <br />- 2 - <br />