My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Special Report of the Operations Secretary
CWCB
>
Publications
>
DayForward
>
Special Report of the Operations Secretary
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2013 1:44:11 PM
Creation date
2/6/2013 2:46:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2003
Title
Special Report of the Operations Secretary
Author
Arkansas River Compact Adminstration
Description
Concerning processes to resolve administrative issues, the status of issues, and a proposal to alternate the offices of operations secretary and assistant operations secretary 12/8/2003
Publications - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The first is a procedural matter. As has been noted by Special Master, Arthur L. <br />Littleworth in his Vol. 2 of his report dated July 1994 at page 176, " It is undisputed that <br />the 1980 plan was (and remains) beneficial to the water users in both states." However, <br />certain ambiguities, inconsistencies, and omissions related to the Administration's <br />resolution as it has been thus far amended, have lead to many issues now before the <br />Operations Committee. There seems to be a disagreement as to whether to continue to <br />amend the resolution or to attempt to resolve issues through separate resolutions. The <br />former method has the advantage of minimizing the number of controlling reference <br />documents, but also carries with it a perceived risk to the benefits afforded to both states <br />by the 1980 Operating Plan by potentially opening Pandora's box. In response to the <br />latter concern, Colorado has tendered at least one resolution proposing recognition of the <br />longstanding practice of using a "Winter Water" account to facilitate the accounting of <br />Section III operations. Kansas, however, has not agreed with this approach. Direction <br />from the Committee and the Administration as to the preferred approach would be <br />appreciated. <br />Second, the potential for retroactive application of any agreement or concession makes it <br />more difficult to resolve some issues. The principle of restitution in the event of injury <br />was established in the 1980 Operating Plan, i.e., Section V; however, the difficulty of <br />actually carrying this out, especially after the passage of significant amounts of time, <br />makes it more difficult to resolve some issues. It is therefore suggested that the <br />Operations Committee consider whether some issues might be resolved if the decision <br />was prospective only. Additionally, the Committee should consider whether it continues <br />to support the assignment of the quantification of injury responsibility to the Engineering <br />Committee as provided in Section V of the 1980 Operating Plan. <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.