Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Impact of Study on Compact Issues <br /> <br />? <br /> Harris Sherman : Have we run the idea of doing this study past our Colorado River <br />Compact negotiators? Could doing the study affect the State’s legal interests, and <br />possibly compromise our negotiating posi tion with the other basin states? <br /> <br />? <br /> Rod Kuharich : If it looked like the results of a study of this nature would prejudice our <br />negotiating position, we might have to consider pulling up short. Any published study <br />could certainly become a document upon whic h litigation is based. However, it is <br />probably a good idea to move forward with identifying water availability. Information of <br />that nature might actually give us a leg up. If we arrive at an availability number that is <br />less than the number in the origin al compact, we might be able to argue that a <br />proportional reduction in the entitlements of all seven compact states makes sense. <br /> <br />Right now, we feel Arizona is overusing their tributaries. With Utah’s St. George <br />pipeline bringing them up to their limit and New Mexico at their full amount with the <br />Deleted: <br />limit, <br />Navajo allocation . Colorado is not fully utilizing our allocation . Wyoming is in a similar <br />situation, with an abundance of water they feel they’re entitled to but are not currently <br />using. <br /> <br />? <br /> Stan Cazier : Does the State have an informal committee meeting to discuss how to <br />administer a call? <br /> <br />? <br /> Rod Kuharich : It did, but this committee is no longer meeting. <br /> <br />Need for Additional Study Funds? <br /> <br />? <br /> Alan Hamel : This issue is important to the Arkansas Roundtable bec ause we’re an <br />importing basin. It is also important to individual utilities and to agriculture – seems we <br />need to move it forward and involve Roundtables in the process. Could funds from SB <br />179 be used to supplement the money that will be appropriated to CWCB if the bill <br />passes, and 500,000 is not enough? <br /> <br />? <br /> Doug Scott : We should make sure that we spend the time and money to get a study, or <br />multiple studies, that answer all of the questions we have. For something that is so <br />critical in all our discussions , allocating only $500,000 feels like we’re doing it on the <br />cheap. We don’t want to set this process up to fail – want the results to be something we <br />can plan from. <br /> <br />? <br /> Eric Wilkinson : I agree with Doug, however if we put more money in this year’s bill it <br />w ill raise a red flag. Perhaps we’ll need to ask for more money in the future, but let’s <br />take it one step at a time. <br /> <br /> <br />15 <br />