Laserfiche WebLink
minimize transit losses on releases of Kansas account water, as measured at the Stateline, <br />by releasing water from the account concurrently with releases of Section II account <br />water requested by Kansas. There does not seem to be any controversy between the <br />States regarding use of the water in the Kansas transit loss account in this manner; <br />however, it has been noted that there is no specific authorization in the 1980 Operating <br />Plan that authorizes the use of water in this manner. <br />I therefore recommend, as an interim measure, that the Operations Committee as a matter <br />of policy, direct that water in the Kansas transit loss account continue to be used in this <br />manner as the most practical means of ensuring delivery of releases of Kansas account <br />water. Further, I recommend that the Committee consider incorporating into the <br />clarifying resolution previously recommended in Issue #31, specific authorization for the <br />use of water in the Kansas transit loss account in this manner to avoid the possibility that <br />it might become an issue at some point in the fixture. <br />Non- reportine of Section H C (1) determinations #41 <br />It is Kansas's position that a daily accounting of certain information that has not <br />historically been included as part of the annual Operations Secretary's Report should be <br />included in the report. Specifically, Kansas wants the report to include information <br />describing operational determinations made by the Operations Secretary related to the <br />provisions of Section II C (1), and in particular the last sentence of that section, which <br />pertains to the by pass of inflows, without temporary storage, during times when <br />conservation storage has been completely released into accounts. Colorado's position has <br />been that this type of information should be routinely provided to Kansas, but that neither <br />the 1980 Operating Plan nor the Administration's By -laws require this type of <br />information to be reported. The Operations Committee has not provided any direction to <br />resolve the issue; however, the basic data is being provided to Kansas throughout the <br />year, thus providing both an opportunity and an obligation to raise concerns in a timely <br />manner. Therefore, because the Assistant Operations Secretary has compiled and <br />submitted the data in time for publication and has made a commitment to share <br />responsibility for answering questions that may be raised related to the information, I <br />decided to include this type of information as part of the 2003 Report. This represents a <br />tentative resolution of the issue; however, the Operations Committee may want to <br />determine for itself whether or not such information should continue to be made a part of <br />the Operations Secretary's Report in the future. <br />Interruution of transfers from conservation storage to accounts #42 & 43 <br />Article V F of the Arkansas River Compact states, in relevant part: "[W]hen there is <br />water in the conservation pool the water users upstream from John Martin reservoir shall <br />not be affected by the decrees to the ditches in Colorado water district 67." In this way, <br />the operation of the conservation pool in John Martin Reservoir benefits water users in <br />Colorado upstream from the reservoir, as provided in Article IV C (3) of the Compact. <br />Article V F thus recognizes that at times when there is water in the conservation pool, <br />-12- <br />