Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />:-:!" <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />r~\4 ~-,.~ ~,'~ :,', s r\ ;( . {'\' f r r;;-, ~~\ I <br /> <br />l I .' . , ." I~', \ . , t.-f./" ~ <br />r ,.":*" ".../ ~.~ . . r--:: ~::~~ ;..;, ~ ,; ~ ",..; / '. .", 1'1 \.... \: <br />LI;. "~,:- ~.. ~':""~~,. :":1- j<": r~ <br /> <br />~ \...t....:L.....~i \'l~l 't1 L~ l b <br /> <br />,~ <br /> <br />t'~i. Jesse <br />''',0 ;cn 10, 1980 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />\DJ~~\fJ <br /> <br />the flexi~ility requi:-ec for sound project operation. P.,dditionally, <br />the installation of gauging stations and their operation belo'.'.r the <br /> <br />;:>icject area would 2110\'1 the District to develop recores en the total <br /> <br />amount of water passing through the canyon into the Arkansas Rive:-. <br /> <br />This provision was felt to be important to the District. <br /> <br />To the <br /> <br />extent that the records or flow would identify water which would not <br /> <br />actually reach the .L,rka:-isas, the project ...;ate;- supply COUld be <br /> <br />incrF2sed. Arkansas interests advised the District that the decree <br /> <br />was essentiallY accepta~le with minor modification. <br />On ~1arch 27, 1365 the Court held a heari:-,g in Civil Action No. 15793. <br /> <br />Dering that hearing, the District presented testi~cny of tlve <br /> <br />\o/itnesses 2nd 'introcucec, irater ali2, H()~se Doc~~';=n~ t~o. 32.5 2nd the <br /> <br />JUlY 15~~ "Irrigation r:.eport, Trinidac Project." Furt:-,er proceedinss <br />were held on April 9 and 15 of 1965 and Findings of Fact, Concl~sicns <br />ef Law and Decree for a Change of Place of Storage were entered on <br />April 15, 1965. This decree contains the limitation previously <br /> <br />quoted cn page 1 of this letter. <br /> <br />This history and develop;nent of the decree \-/as derived from <br /> <br />~ocuments, records and correspondence of the parties involved in the <br /> <br />transfer case. <br /> <br />If needed we wi 1 I provide you with copies of t~e5e <br /> <br />references to verify our summary. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br />The decree limitation can be simplified by the following state- <br />ments: The flow at Thatcher shall re~aln and be the same as it would <br /> <br />have been had the Model Reservoir Riaht not been transferred to t~e <br /> <br />Triniclad Reservoir. The State Encineer determines whether or not the <br />flow is the same as it would have been without Trinidad Reservoir <br /> <br />usina a ten year oroaressive series. <br /> <br />In order to implement this limitation the drafters of the decree <br />realized that it was necessary to provide for adequate measurement of <br />the flow of the Purgatoire River below the project area. The decree <br />