Laserfiche WebLink
Evaluation of alternatine the offices of Operations Secretary and Assistant <br />Operations Secretary between the States <br />Kansas' representatives to the Administration suggested consideration of alternating the <br />election of the offices of the Operations Secretary and the Assistant Operations Secretary <br />at the reconvened 2002 meeting held on May 22, 23, 2003. The Operations Committee <br />requested an evaluation of this idea based on discussions to be held by the Operations <br />Secretary and the Assistant Operations Secretary to be reported at the December 2003 <br />meeting of the Administration. <br />Although the basis for this request was not fully explained at that time, I assume that the <br />suggestion was prompted by the idea that consideration of the prospect of such a rotation <br />of responsibilities might cause the officers to consider the perspective of their counterpart <br />and appreciate how it might feel to "have the shoe on the other foot ". Another possible <br />reason for alternating the positions is that Kansas might gain a better understanding of the <br />intricacies and practical difficulties of implementing operational agreements that have <br />been made. However, having considered the proposal from a practical perspective, I <br />cannot recommend its implementation at the present time. <br />The respective duties of the Operations Secretary and the Assistant Operations Secretary <br />are described by paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article II of the By -laws of the Arkansas River <br />Compact Administration. One of the duties of the Operations Secretary is the preparation <br />of reports of deliveries of water in connection with the operations of John Martin <br />Reservoir to be presented to the Operations Committee. Section VII A. of the Resolution <br />Concerning an Operating Plan for John Martin Reservoir specifies that the "Colorado <br />Division Engineer" shall make an accounting of the operation under the resolution for the <br />previous compact year. To a large extent, the duties of the Operations Secretary and the <br />Division Engineer overlap. So long as the Colorado Division Engineer is elected as the <br />Operations Secretary, these two documents would not be inconsistent. However, if the <br />Water Commissioner of the Garden City Field Office or other qualified individual were <br />to be elected, the resolution would need to be amended to prevent an unnecessary and <br />wasteful duplication of effort. <br />Further, when I consider the qualifications for the office of Operations Secretary, I <br />believe the Division Engineer for Division 2 is better suited for the position. The reason <br />has nothing to do with the capabilities of the individual involved, but with the <br />institutional responsibilities of their positions. The Division Engineer is accountable to <br />water users upstream and downstream of John Martin Reservoir. One of the key <br />principles of the Compact, set forth in Article N C. (3), is that the conservation pool will <br />be operated for the benefit of water users in Colorado and Kansas, both upstream and <br />downstream of John Martin Reservoir. The Division Engineer must administer the water <br />rights of water users in Colorado both upstream and downstream of John Martin <br />Reservoir. The water users in Colorado downstream of John Martin Reservoir generally <br />have same interests as water users in Kansas, at least with respect to diversions by water <br />users in Colorado upstream of John Martin Reservoir. The Water Commissioner of the <br />Garden City Field Office is only accountable to water users in Kansas and has <br />-20- <br />