My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD10333
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD10333
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:13:02 AM
Creation date
10/19/2007 11:38:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Pueblo
Community
Pueblo County
Stream Name
Arkansas River
Basin
Arkansas
Title
Proceedings from the Arkansas River Basin Water Forum - Jan 3-4, 1996
Date
11/3/1996
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The Master heard claims from the State of Kansas that Colorado had violated the compact between the two states <br />covering the waters of the Arkansas River in three particulars: <br /> <br />Kansas alleged that the operation of the Trinidad Reservoir and the way in which water was stored in that <br />reservoir was in violation of certain operating agreements entered into between Kansas, the Purgatoire River <br />Water Conservancy District, and the Bw-eau of Reclamation. <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />Kansas also alleged that the operation of winter water storage in Pueblo Reservoir. a feature of the Fryingpan_ <br />Arkansas Project, violated the compact by increasing the amount of depletion that occurred to the waters of the <br />Arkansas River. <br /> <br />Kansas alleged that post-compact wells, numbering some 2,000, had the effect of increasing the amount of <br />depletion to the Arkansas River. <br /> <br />After the Master had heard the preliminary skirmishing, he decided to bifurcate the trial. We now have had the first <br />phase of that bifurcated trial. and that was to determine liability, the question of whether or not Colorado had in any <br />particular way violated the tenDs of the Arkansas River Compact. The second phase of the trial will be the remedy <br />phase. That is proceeding at the present time. The purpose of the remedy phase is twofold: <br /> <br />FirSt, to determine the amOlmt of depletions that occurred in violation of the compact. How much water should have <br />gone to Kansas from 1950 to 1994 that did not go to Kansas? <br /> <br />Second, to determine how Colorado will comply with the compact in the future. How will Colorado ensure that the <br />state line flows to which Kansas is entitled (referred to as usable state line flows) are not diminished in the future? <br /> <br />In addition. the Master has to decide, for the quantity of depletions that occurred over the last 45 years or so, what <br />Colorado will do to repay Kansas or make Kansas whole for the lack of supply. <br /> <br />I want to emphasize this again - the fact that there is water in the Arkansas River, in the river system in Colorado, does <br />not give the State of Colorado the right to consume it all. Colorado may only divert and consume its equitable share of <br />the waters of the Arkansas River. <br /> <br />The Arkansas River Compact, then, signed in 1948, basically was a stand-still compact. The concept behind it was that <br />the waters of the system were being fully used under many circumstances in both states. In fact, there was insufficient <br />water in the system under many conditions to serve the existing water users in 1948 in both states. The idea behind the <br />compact was that neither state would increase the amount of depletions to the river unless it could show that the increase <br />in use did not derive water users in the other state of supplies to which they were entitled. <br /> <br />Basically, the concept was to draw a line in 1948 -- anything that happens in either state after '48 that has the effect of <br />depriving users in the other state potentially. DOtentially. could constitute a violation of the compact. I want to make it <br />clear that in 1948 and today there is unused water in the system under some circumstances, and the compact recognizes <br />a state's right to make use of that unused water, if it can, without injury. That is an important concepL <br /> <br />Unstability, as far as the Arkansas River Compact is concerned, is looking at water use in the mirror of 1948, Usable <br />flows means those waters which would have been used in 1948 by the structures and conditions that existed then. In the <br />State of Kansas, a certain number of ditches, under certain flow conditions, received water. There was a certain <br />increment of water that went to recharge for pre-1948 wells in Kansas, and there was also water that flowed across the <br />state line, through western Kansas. and right out the other end of the compacted reach at Garden City. The compact <br />framers thought of the water that passed Garden City without anyone diverting it as being unusable. They contemplated <br />that both states. Kansas and Colorado, could undertake steps to try and capture that water. One of the measures to do so <br />was John Martin Reservoir. which would capture and regulate flood flows for the benefit of users in Colorado and <br />Kansas. <br /> <br />Arkansas River Basin Water Forwn <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />itA River of Dreams and Realities" <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.