Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. \ <br /> <br /> <br />F~lE COpy <br /> <br />D E PAR T M E NT 0 FAG R I ( U L TU R E <br />AD R I AN J . PO LAN SKY , SECRETARY <br /> <br />August 20, 2003 <br /> <br />KATHLEEN SEBElIUS, GOVERNOI <br /> <br />Hal Simpson <br />State Engineer <br />Colorado Division of Water Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br /> <br />RECEIVED <br />KS Dept. of Agriculture <br /> <br />AUG 2 2.2003 <br /> <br />RE: Kansas CY 2003 Delivery Options <br /> <br />Garden City Field OffiCe <br />Division of Water Resources <br /> <br />Dear Hal: <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />The Colorado' Division II staffhas asked if Kansas was going to call for water this year. <br />They were told that under the current conditions Kansas would not likely be calling for water. <br />We have been reviewing river conditions and options for utilizing ou.f. water stored in John Martin <br />Reservoir during this irrigation season. Under prevailing river conditions most of this summer, it <br />appears a delivery to the state line would be difficult and losses would be significant. . <br /> <br />We have'considered calling for water from the Offset Account: However, in reviewing a <br />. .CY20920ffsetacc911J)tdeliy~ry'(A:llril1 O. to April12,20Q,2),.we <;ak1Jl~t~d.a transit loss of: <br />46%(1610 AF) during this delivery that was relatively early in the season with antecedent flow <br />above 60 cfs. Using this past delivery as a basis of comparison and with a current antecedent flow <br />und~r 30 cfs; it is doubtful that more than 50% of any Offset Account water released would be <br />delivered to the stateline. . <br /> <br />In a letter dated April 22; 2002 from Steve Witte, as well as in your report to the Compact <br />Administration, Colorado used a calculated transit loss of22.47% for this same Offset Account <br />release. We do not believe this is reflective of the actual transit iosses suffered. This illustrates a <br />significant problem in accounting for and crediting of Offset Account deliveries. <br /> <br />( <br />\~ <br />'-. <br /> <br />In summary ~ Kansas has concluded that it may not be practical, or very efficient, to call for <br />accoUnt water during current river conditions and given the uncertainty of reservoir releases being <br />delivered to the Stateline. Although we c(;mld call for water available to Kansas in the Offset <br />Account to help mitigate well depletions of Stateline flows, current proposals by Colorado for <br />accounting and crediting of that delivery create disincentives for 'use of that account by the State <br /> <br />D i y is i.QJLoL'tLoc.lu__RJLSJLILLULS D 0 y i d L~.JL<-c..J.ili.u..D..!ll11 e e r <br />TO 9 S W 9 t h S T., 2 n d F I 00 r Top'e k 0, K S 6 6 6 1 2 - 1 2 8 3 <br />V oi ( e. (7 8 5) 2 9 6 - 3] 17 Fox (7 8 5) 2 9 6 -1 1 7 6 h tt P :I / w w W . 0 (( e s s k 0 n s 0 S ,or 9 / k do <br /> <br />