Laserfiche WebLink
Section III D of the 1980 Operating Plan requires that the transfer of water must occur at <br />the instant of physical arrival in the reservoir. Colorado believes that there is a legitimate <br />reason for delaying the distribution and that this delay has no adverse impact on Kansas <br />in most years and has proposed a compromise in the form of the draft resolution <br />discussed above under Issue #20. <br />It is recommended that further efforts to address this issue separately from #20, above, be <br />tabled pending further consideration of the draft resolution. <br />Criteria for determining Section III storage during the Winter Storage <br />Program #22 <br />Kansas's position is that the criteria used by Colorado to determine a division of the <br />inflows into John Martin Reservoir during the period of the Winter Water Storage <br />Program (November 15 to March 15 of each Compact year) fails to adhere to the criteria <br />established in the 1980 Operating Plan. Colorado's position is that the 1980 Operating <br />Plans does not provide criteria for the division. The 1980 Operating Plan clearly <br />authorizes the concurrent storage of inflows during the period of winter storage as <br />inflows to conservation storage and "other water". See Section I D (definition of <br />"Inflows "). Therefore, a division of inflows to the reservoir during such periods must be <br />made. The procedure to make this division has been consistently used throughout the <br />period that Section III of the 1980 Operating Plan has been in existence. Since the <br />Special Master concluded that Kansas did not prove that the Winter Water Storage <br />Program causes material Stateline depletions, and Kansas's exception to that finding was <br />overruled by the United States Supreme Court, Colorado is very reluctant to make any <br />changes to the procedures used in the administration of that program. For this reason, <br />this issue has been characterized as a legal issue. <br />This should not be understood as an absolute refusal by Colorado to consider any <br />alternative procedure. Colorado is willing to investigate and consider alternatives that <br />may be more appropriate. In this respect, this issue has been categorized as a technical <br />issue. It should be noted that the Colorado Water Court decree (84CW179) approving <br />the Winter Water Storage Program contains the following term and condition: <br />If in the opinion of the Division Engineer, acting as the operation <br />secretary of the Arkansas River Compact Administration, the winter <br />inflow quantity to the John Martin Reservoir conservation pool in the <br />winter period significantly departs from the 1950 -1975 winter inflow <br />quantity, he will advise the winter storage chairman, who shall convene <br />the Board of Trustees to make findings as to the cause of such departure <br />from historic patterns. Winter water that is delivered to John Martin <br />Reservoir for storage in accounts in John Martin Reservoir shall not be <br />included in the inflow quantity to the John Martin Reservoir conservation <br />pool. <br />