Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c <br />- ,. <br /> <br />-> ...-' <br /> <br />, I <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER <br />Jivision of Water Resources <br />Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone (303) 866-3581 <br />FAX (303) 866-3589 <br /> <br /> <br />October 17, 2003 <br /> <br />Bill Owens <br />Governor <br /> <br />Greg E. Walcher <br />Executive Director <br /> <br />Hal D. Simpson, P.E. <br />State Engineer <br /> <br />~.vvate~state.co.us <br /> <br />Mr. David L. Pope <br />Kansas Chi~f Engineer <br />Kansas Board of Agriculture <br />901 S. Kansas Avenue, 2nd Floor <br />Topeka, KS 66612-1283 <br /> <br />RE: Kansas CY2003 Delivery Options <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Pope: <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />We reviewed your August 20,2003 letter regarding Kansas' decision to not call for' <br />any stored water in 2003 and wanted to reply to some of your concerns about <br />computation of transit losses on Offset Account deliveries. <br /> <br />Your August 20,.2003 letter stated that you computed a transit loss of 46% (1,610 <br />acre-feet) during an OffsetAccount delivery call~d for from April 1 0 through April <br />19, 2002 (release rate 200 cfs; total volume released 3,479.55 acre-feet). You <br />stated al~o that the antecedent flow was 60 cfs, and that based on the analysis <br />that with a current antecedent flow under 30 cfs, it is doubtful that more than 50% <br />of any Offset Account ,^,at~f released would be delivered to the sfate line. <br /> <br />Additionally, you reference the April 22, 20.02 letter from Steve Witte incorporated <br />in the report to the Compact Administration and indicate that the transit loss <br />. computed in accordance with the Resolution Concerning an Offset Account in <br />John Martin Reservoir for Colorado Pumping as Amended March 30, 1998 (Offset <br />Account Resolution) was 22.47% and indicate that you believe this illustrates a <br />significant problem in accounting for and crediting of Offset Account deliveries. <br /> <br />Finally, you state in summary that Kansas has concluded that it may not be <br />practical, orvery efficient, to call for account water under current river conditions <br />and that current proposals by Colorado for accounting and crediting of that <br />delivery create disincentives for use of that account (Offset Account) by the State <br />of Kansas. <br /> <br />RECEIVED <br />KS Dept. of Agriculture <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />OCT 2 7 Z003 <br /> <br />- -- -Gaf-ljell-City-.:EieLdJ).tti.ca-- <br />Division of Water Resources <br /> <br />