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 first is a procedural matter, As has been noted by Special Master, Arthur L. <br />Littleworth in his Vol. 2 of his report dated July 1994 at page 176, "It is undisputed that <br />the 1980 plan was (and remains) beneficial to the water users in both states," However, <br />certain ambiguities, inconsistencies, and omissions related to the Administration's <br />resolution as it has been thus far amended, have lead to many issues now before the <br />Operations Committee. There seems to be a disagreement as to whether to continue to <br />amend the resolution or to attempt to resolve issues through separate resolutions, The <br />fonner method has the advantage of minimizing the number of controlling reference <br />documents, but also carries with it a perceived risk to the benefits afforded to both states <br />by the 1980 Operating Plan by potentially opening Pandora's box. In response to the <br />latter concern, Colorado has tendered at least one resolution proposing recognition of the <br />longstanding practice of using a "Winter Water" account to facilitate the accounting of <br />Section ill operations, Kansas, however, has not agreed with this approach, Direction <br />from the Corrnnittee and the Administration as to the preferred approach would be <br />appreciated, <br /> <br />Second, the potential for retroactive application of any agreement or concession makes it <br />more difficult to resolve some issues. The principle of restitution in the event of injury <br />was established in the 1980 Operating Plan, i,e" Section V; however, the difficulty of <br />actually carrying this out, especially after the passage of significant amounts of time, <br />makes it more difficult to resolve some issues. It is therefore suggested that the <br />Operations Committee consider whether some issues might be resolved if the decision <br />was prospective only, Additionally, the Committee should consider whether it continues <br />to support the assignment of the quantification of injury responsibility to the Engineering <br />Corrnnittee as provided in Section V of the 1980 Operating Plan, <br /># <br /> <br />- 7 - <br />