My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes of Arkansas River Compact Administration Special Telephonic Meeting June 14 1999
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
Minutes of Arkansas River Compact Administration Special Telephonic Meeting June 14 1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/26/2014 8:36:10 AM
Creation date
11/26/2014 8:36:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
ARCA Minutes of a Special Meeting 06/14/1999 Telephonic
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Date
6/14/1999
Title
ARCA Minutes of a Special Meeting 06/14/1999 Telephonic
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
• <br /> Iconsidered a water delivery from other valid water rights owned or controlled by <br /> the State of Colorado. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of water <br /> I administration in a situation would ... I was not aware that there would be a <br /> Colorado water right authorizing storage nor would it be controlled by the State of <br /> Colorado in the flood pool. <br /> ITrujillo: Does that answer your question, Mr. Witte? <br /> IWitte: I think so,yes. <br /> Trujillo: And,um ... <br /> IStark: Mr. Trujillo,this is Mark Stark out at John Martin Reservoir, and I've got a <br /> question for both Mr. Pope and Mr. Witte and I will admit this is from a layman's <br /> I perspective, but from the water rights administration perspective my question <br /> would be,the river for users along the river now since May 2nd has been <br /> considered in a free river condition, which means that people have filled their <br /> I reservoirs, have used irrigation water at their beck and call, wherever needed and <br /> as much as they needed, it was a free river condition. Would the storage in <br /> available space for this permanent pool not fall within that criteria from the <br /> Iperspective of a free river condition, notwithstanding the transfer from the flood <br /> pool as described? <br /> ITrujillo: You want to answer that, Steve? <br /> IMiller: Steve Miller or Steve Witte? <br /> Stark: Witte, I guess ... well,I address that to Mr. Witte and Mr. Pope because that ... <br /> I that, from a layman's perspective appears where the conflict lies as to what's <br /> happening with this water in the river, and I would add that while there's probably <br /> a benefit being received by the State of Kansas,no doubt in my mind of that, I <br /> I have received numerous complaints of water in excess of what was ... what is <br /> desired by the constituency who use and are affected by the Arkansas River past <br /> the Stateline. And, I mean, it seems like again, I'm presenting this from a layman's <br /> I perspective,but it appears to be awfully convoluted as to ... particularly in a free <br /> river condition. <br /> I Witte: Well,Mark this is Steve Witte, and I think as I understand your question, it's a <br /> very good one. If Mr. Pope's concern about the conflict between water that's <br /> currently in the flood pool being under Colorado's control is the prime conflict that <br /> I he sees between the proposal as originally made and the principles described in the <br /> Operating Criteria, would alternatively water appropriated ... water inflowing into <br /> John Martin Reservoir ... appropriated into the permanent pool be acceptable? <br /> G:\ARCAIMEEY7NGS\19991SP61499A revl.wpd <br /> 11 edited December 13,2004;printed:December 13,2004 <br /> I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.