Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum <br />Date: January 24, 2012 <br />To: Russell Howard, <br />ALP Association Representatives <br />From: Rick J. Cox <br />Erin Wilson <br />Subject: Meeting Summary — Steve Harris Conference Call on May 15, 2012 <br />The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the conference call with Steve Harris, Erin Wilson and Rick <br />Cox and our impression of Steve's opinions on the issues discussed. <br />Erin sent an email with graphics showing Lake Nighthorse Reservoir contents for three scenarios. They were: <br />1. 450 cfs ALP diversion limit with year -round pumping, 2 -month pumping throughout the analysis <br />period, and 2 -month pumping with year -round pumping when reservoir below 60,000 AF, returning <br />to 2 -month pumping at 100,000 AF. <br />2. 349 cfs, remainder same as above. <br />3. 349 cfs, 4 month pumping, remainder same as above. <br />A fourth graphic showed the three scenarios on a single graphic. <br />It should be noted that the pumping for the two 349 cfs scenarios does not allow diversion to the maximum of <br />349 but restricts it to the USBR demands for that month. This is more restrictive than the 450 scenario <br />presented. <br />We discussed the possibility that with ALP limiting pumping to 2 months during peak runoff months, the <br />remaining 10 months may provide more available water to the remaining water right than if ALP pumped <br />year- round. <br />Following are issues discussed: <br />1. Steve started discussion by taking shared priority off the table. Based on previous meeting and <br />analyses presented, Steve is convinced that the impact to ALP would be too significant to share <br />priority. He indicated his belief that the SWCD staff and attorneys agree with that position. <br />2. After explanation, Steve understood that the 315 cfs in the Protocol was an average and that the <br />maximum pumping (280 cfs) plus NM demands was really 349 cfs (June). <br />3. Steve asked for a graphic that shows a maximum diversion of 315 cfs each month to demonstrate to <br />SWCD that the difference between varying monthly diversion maximums and 315 cfs each month is <br />too limiting to the project. <br />4. It was explained that the maximum diversion (450 cfs) can only be diverted by ALP in June, when <br />available. In other months, the diversion from the river was limited to 280 cfs plus the ALP demand <br />met by direct river diversion, which is less than 450 cfs. <br />5. Bypass requirement was discussed extensively. Rick and Erin explained that the bypass needs to take <br />priority over ALP and contemplated SWCD diversions. Steve was not willing to concede this point <br />yet and said he would think about it more. <br />6. Rick and Erin explained that the 450, 2 month pumping scenario is the Association's preferred <br />operating plan. It allows for quicker refilling of the reservoir than other scenarios. None of the 349 <br />cfs scenarios are acceptable to the Association. Steve expressed his opinion that the Protocol limits <br />ALP diversion to the 349 maximum but acknowledged that ALP right was still more than 600 cfs. <br />