C153716 Communications - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District also became actively involved in the review process following the issuing of the initial draft report. On February 5, 1987, the interested parties met in Denver to discuss the direc- tion of the review. The Bureau of Reclamation representatives left this meeting believing that the follo\~ing general consensus had been reached: I 1. A new draft report would be issued. 2. A tabulation of operational data for the years of the review period would be developed including a reconstruction, as necessary, to account for abnormalities such as the July 1, 1981 change in the Trinidad Reservoir area capacity table. 3. Ttle impacts of a transfer of water from the model right to the joint use poo 1 and the storage of wi nter water under the di rect flow rights waul d be determined by adjusting the operation study shown in the 1964 Study to reflect this administration of water rights and comparing the results. I 4. The effects of the District not acquiring certain water rights initially assumed to be part of the project water supply would be analyzed. 5. The State of Colorado would develop and submit for review a criteria and pro- cedure for storing and releasing flood flows. I ! 6. The District would develop, and submit for review, procedures for assuring that only appropriate lands are irrigated and that only a reasonable amount of water was diverted to project lands. During the course of the February 5, 1987 meeting, the State of Kansas questioned whether the operating ~rinciples permit project water to be used on lands other than those specifically stipulated in the operating principles, even if the total irrigated acreage did not exceed the maximum permitted by the prin- ciples. I i I I J I I I I I Following the February 5, 1987 meeting, accordance with the Bureau.s understanding the February 5, 1987 meeting. Results of second draft report of the Trinidad Project 1987. extensive studies were done in of the consensus reached during these studi es were shown in the Principle Review, dated December The interested parties met in Denver on February 16,1988 to discuss the techni ca 1 aspects of the second draft report and again on Apri 1 27, 1988 to discuss policy issues. During the course of these meetings, Kansas officials claimed that they had not agreed in the February 5, 1987 meeting to evaluate the transfer of water out of the Model Right and the storage of winter water under the direct flow decrees over the 1925 through 1957 period using the 1964 study as the basis. Kansas particularly objected to the exclusion of an in- depth analysis of these water rights administration practices over the 1979 through 1984 review period. Kansas questioned the use of a 19,500 acre-foot~/ .~/The 39,000 acre-foot joint-use pool is expected to fill with sediment over the I ife of the project. The 1961 and 1964 Studies used 19,500 acre-feet as average joint-use pool. 7