Laserfiche WebLink
Section H C. (2) compliance question related to Colorado's Agreement B #60 <br />Kansas interprets Section II C (2) as requiring Colorado ditches upstream of John Martin <br />Reservoir to deliver water to the priorities of Colorado Water District 67 ditches <br />coincident with the exhaustion of conservation storage. Kansas, therefore, has asserted <br />that any intrastate agreement by Colorado waxer users, such Agreement B, which has the <br />effect of causing Colorado Water District 67 ditches to defer the exercise of their water <br />rights is improper. <br />Colorado contends that this arrangement is consistent with the administration of the <br />priority system in Colorado, and that it is not inconsistent with either the Compact or the <br />1980 Operating Plan, and therefore the matter is not properly before the Operations <br />Conunittee. Further, Colorado has advised the Committee that such an agreement is <br />necessary to preserve the benefits to water users upstream from John Martin Reservoir <br />under the Compact and in order to justify the continuation of the 1980 Operating Plan <br />from Colorado's perspective. The Kansas representative to the Compact Administration <br />were advised of the need for an agreement such as Agreement B shortly after the <br />adoption of the 1980 Operation Plan, and they took the position that the agreement was a <br />matter to be resolved by Colorado, which it was. <br />It is therefore my recommendation that this issue should be referred to the Administrative <br />and Legal Committee with a recommendation that no further consideration be given to <br />this issue. <br />Retroactive adjustments to accounting for prior years if accounting methods <br />are revised #61 <br />Although this issue was previously addressed in this report as an impediment to the <br />resolution of some issues, some further discussion of issue is appropriate. Kansas has <br />indicated or implied that because of what it believes to be inappropriate handling of the <br />operations and/or accounting associated with some of the issues discussed above, <br />restitution for injury to Kansas should be made based on the Kansas accounting. <br />Examples of issues where an expectation of restitution has been expressed include Issues <br />#Z land #30, and there may also be an expectation of restitution associated with Issues <br />#22, #51, and #52. It should be noted that a calculation of loss has been made by <br />Colorado with respect to Issue #10 as listed in the issues matrix (see Attachment B of <br />Appendix 4), but no claim for restitution has been made. This issue is not discussed in <br />this report because it has been referred to the Engineering Committee. <br />Section V of the 1980 Operating Plan does provide a procedure for making restitution in <br />the event of injury, but I urge consideration of the spill of conservation storage that <br />occurred June 4, 1999, with respect to any claim of injury prior to that time, the <br />practicality of making restitution after the passage of significant amounts of time, the <br />equities associated with all claims of loss, and the effect that retroactive application might <br />have on the likelihood that operational and accounting issues can be resolved. <br />9" <br />