Minutes of Arkansas River Compact Administration Special Telephonic Meeting June 14 1999

Home Browse Search

I . 1 approval of this Administration." And of course, earlier parts of the resolution talk about the Muddy Creek decree and other sources. So I guess...the point Dave Barfield I think made to Steve Miller was simply that we thought the proposed Iaction last year was simply just to allow a source of water consistent with that resolution to be approved by the Administration and I think that's what the I resolution did. Now we're a little unclear, we're not aware that that was actually done last year, as it turned out. Maybe Steve Witte or someone could help explain what really did happen last year, and how that might work this year. But I wanted Ito just clarify what our concerns were and what we understood the case to be. Trujillo: Steve, do you want to respond to that,please? IWitte: Yes,this is Steve Witte. My recollection is that the resolution that was passed March 24, 1998 was done in anticipation of a spill occurring later in the 1 year...later in the compact year of 1998, and that spill did not materialize and so the resolution became moot at that point. ITrujillo: Does that answer your question,Mr. Pope? Pope: Yes,I think it does, and I was fairly sure that it had not occurred, either,but I just Iarrived back in the office and we talked a little bit here today,but really haven't gone back and checked any records or any detail there on that. I guess the other question then would be is if we were to adopt this resolution today...what would Ibe the plan of operation that Colorado has in mind to fulfill its terms? ITrujillo: Mr. Witte? Witte: Well, initially,my concept was that 1,000 acre feet approximately of the water I currently in the flood pool could be moved into the permanent pool,thus topping off the 10,000 acre foot capacity that is allowed to invade the flood pool. I Miller: And that's where I ... this is Steve Miller,that was the concept, and the draft resolution that I sent out maybe could be strengthened to make it clear that that is what we were talking about, and in my view that would resolve potential conflicts 1 with the '76 Resolution. In other words, ARCA adopted the '76 Resolution, and ARCA could change for this year the impact of that resolution by being clearer in the '99 Resolution that it would be a direct transfer from flood pool to permanent I pool. Trujillo: Mr. Pope, if we'd follow that, would that then satisfy your concerns? I Pope: no I don't think it would. Again, I think I understand now what's being p Ah, g proposed, but we're not sure in the brief discussion with the other two Kansas G:\ARCAMETINGS\1999\SP61499A revl.wpd 7 edited•3ecember 13,2004;printed:December 13,2004 1