Laserfiche WebLink
This term and condition is intended to protect the interests of downstream water users, <br />and the comparison called for has been performed on an annual basis. Additionally, in <br />my capacity as Division Engineer, I have committed to begin making this type of <br />comparison on a monthly basis and distributing the information to the Assistant <br />Operations Secretary and the other recipients of the Winter Water Storage Program status <br />reports throughout the winter storage season. I have also invited input concerning the <br />most appropriate definition of the phrase "significantly departs" as used in the term and <br />condition quoted above. <br />The Assistant Operations Secretary proposed an alternative methodology to determine a <br />division of the inflows into John Martin Reservoir during the period November 15 <br />through March 15 in a submittal dated March 29, 2002, that was reviewed and criticized <br />by the Operations Secretary. No revision of that proposal has been made and no further <br />discussions regarding it have taken place, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of <br />Colorado's position. <br />I recommend continued discussions on this issue at the staff level. <br />Determination of Transit Loss #30 <br />Section 11 E 4 of the 1980 Operating Plan directs the Colorado Division Engineer and a <br />representative of the Kansas Division of Water Resources to determine transit losses on <br />releases of water from the Kansas account. The only guidance provided in relation to <br />how such determinations are to be made is found in the first sentence of that Section: <br />"Releases of Kansas account water shall be measured at the Stateline as provided in <br />Compact Article V E (3) allowing appropriate arrival times." <br />Beginning in Compact year 1982 and extending through Compact year 1997, the <br />Colorado Division Engineer and the Water Commissioner of the Garden City Field <br />Office or another representative of the Kansas Division of Water Resources attempted to <br />fulfill this responsibility by annual agreements that modified certain provisions of the <br />1980 Operating Plan and established methods to determine crediting of releases of <br />Kansas account water delivered to the Stateline. Using these methods, there were no <br />instances in which a deficit was determined to have occurred; therefore, there was no <br />need to quantify transit losses on releases of Kansas account water. No such agreements <br />have been made since 1997. Kansas has claimed transit losses on releases of its account <br />water in Compact years 2001 (not quantified) and 2002 (4375 a.f.). Colorado did not <br />agree that any transit losses occurred in Compact year 2001 and determined a transit loss <br />of 676 a.f. in Compact year 2002. The current positions of the State officials are <br />documented in an exchange of letters (Rude to Witte dated March 4, 2003, Witte to Rude <br />March 19, 2003, Rude to Witte May 16, 2003), which are included in Appendix 6. <br />At the request of the Colorado Division Engineer, Thomas W. Ley, PE, PhD, the Lead <br />Hydrographer, Division 2, Colorado Division of Water Resources, evaluated each of the <br />67 releases of water from the Kansas account during the period 1980 -2002. The purpose <br />for this evaluation was to characterize the physical response of the Arkansas River at the <br />-10- <br />