Laserfiche WebLink
■ <br /> I <br /> ' permanent pool without changing any of the conservation pool operations, and the <br /> resolution we prepared is similar, in fact identical except for the dates, to one that <br /> ARCA did adopt last year. That resolution allows the State Engineer of Colorado <br /> and the Chief Engineer of Kansas to agree to a plan for transferring water into the <br /> permanent pool. In discussions with David Barfield in Topeka there's some <br /> ' concern that what we're proposing here might be different than what was <br /> approved by ARCA in 1976 which requires Colorado own the water or be in <br /> control of the water that is moved into the permanent pool. We're not sure what <br /> Kansas' concern is, if they're concerned with the conflicting language or if they're <br /> concerned somehow about moving water,the physical operation of moving water <br /> from the flood pool into the permanent pool. I think we could correct the <br /> ' technical mismatch between the '76 language and the proposed '99 language by <br /> changing some of the wording in the draft resolution that I sent out last week, but <br /> if there's a more fundamental concern,then we need to talk about that. Steve <br /> Witte, did I cover it? <br /> • Witte: Yes, I think so. <br /> ' really conferring with <br /> Miller: OK,then I suggest that since we didn't have the luxury of Bally g <br /> ' are on <br /> Kansas officials before we put this together, I'm not sure where they really <br /> ' it, and I appreciate David Barfield kind of going out on a limb when no one else <br /> was around,to agree to set up this meeting so we could see if there was <br /> ' opportunity to agree on something. <br /> Trujillo: OK, Mr. Barfield or Mr. Pope, do you want to respond? <br /> ' Pope: This is David Pope. I guess I thought it would be appropriate to try to amplify a <br /> little bit on the comments that Steve had just made in regard to questions that we <br /> might have, and certainly Kansas was willing and is willing to talk about this issue. <br /> Last year's resolution, which I think the proposed resolution is identical to as <br /> Steve has said except for the date, did contain a provision that the transfers that <br /> were agreed to by the Colorado State Engineer and the Kansas Chief Engineer <br /> shall be subject ... this is the last line in the resolution basically, the full paragraph, <br /> it says"such transfers shall be subject to the John Martin Reservoir Permanent <br /> Pool operating criteria adopted by the Administration on August 14, 1976." It <br /> was our view at that time, and I think still is,that the proposed action we took last <br /> year was not in conflict with the '76 Resolution, or it could not be in conflict with <br /> ' that resolution, and I think that would continue to be the position that we would <br /> want to take this year. Referring to that particular resolution, it does ... in the ... <br /> for those of you that have that in front of you, the 1976 resolution of August 14th, <br /> says that the final be it further resolved, I'll essentially quote ... it says that"water <br /> deliveries from other valid water rights owned or controlled by the State of <br /> Colorado may be added to the permanent pool water supply subject to the <br /> G:\ARCA\MEETI GS\19991SP61499A revl.wpd <br /> 6 edited:December 13,2004;printed:December 13,2004 <br />