Laserfiche WebLink
Adjustments to John Martin Reservoir inflows for affect of upstream storage <br />during times of spill #53 <br />When storage was allowed to occur in post - Compact reservoirs, as described in <br />connection with Issue #52 above, the effect of such storage was to reduce the inflow to <br />John Martin Reservoir and the total volume of water that otherwise would have <br />physically spilled from the reservoir. In order to account for the reduced inflow to <br />conservation storage as a result of post - Compact development, an adjustment was made <br />based on the amount and timing of additional inflow to John Martin Reservoir that would <br />have occurred but for the upstream diversions. A release (transfer) equal to this <br />adjustment was then made from the actively spilling account to conservation storage. <br />Thus, accruals to conservation storage occurred at the rate of adjusted inflow until the <br />spill ended to insure that the content of accounts was not affected by the upstream post - <br />Compact storage. This process is illustrated by the figure in Appendix 11. <br />It appears unlikely that this practice can be approved by the Operations Committee as a <br />matter of policy until the legal issue ( #52) is resolved. Therefore, it is recommended that <br />the matter be tabled pending resolution of that issue or until all other issues are resolved. <br />Section II spill volume limitation during summer storage events #54 <br />If I understand Kansas' concern correctly, it is that there does not appear to be clear <br />authority in the 1980 Operating Plan to justify the practice of limiting the total volume of <br />water spilled from Section 11 accounts to the amount contained in those accounts at the <br />inception of spill of water from such accounts. (It should be noted that the simultaneous <br />spill out of accounts and release into accounts pursuant to Section II B (3) as shown in <br />Appendix 12, could result in the possibility that spill of either the transit loss account or <br />of conservation storage would otherwise be precluded unless some stopping mechanism <br />is established.) It is my understanding that no objection to the practice exists, only that <br />there is a need clarify the intent of the Administration in this regard. I have justified this <br />practice in reliance upon the following sentence from Section II G of the 1980 Operating <br />Plan: "The amount of spill from the accounts should be amongst them according to the <br />amounts in them at the beginning of the spill." However, admittedly, this same sentence <br />is also relied upon for justification of the practice of proportioning the rate of Spill <br />between the Kansas Section 11 account and the Section R accounts of the Colorado <br />ditches. Given this duality of purpose, the perceived ambiguity, and the apparent lack of <br />controversy over this issue, it may be possible to agree upon a separate clarifying <br />statement as an amendment to the 1980 Operating Plan to confirm the practice. <br />It is therefore recommended that the Operations Secretary and the Assistant Operations <br />Secretary be directed to collaborate to bdetermine r ted fore consideration by the Operations <br />be proposed to dispose of this issue p <br />Committee. <br />-17- <br />