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

Home Browse Search

• ' Compact members, we're really not sure that we're willing to commit to that. We are willing to consider a special approval of the transfer of water that would be consistent with the '76 resolution into the permanent pool to top it off, but that might be water that otherwise would be available, but as far as just a direct transfer from the flood pool to the permanent pool, we're not convinced that's an appropriate action to take. Trujillo: Just a point of clarification,you stated that the last resolution passed last year had ' the statement in it that"such transfer shall be subject to the John Martin Reservoir Permanent Pool Operating Criteria adopted by the Administration on August 14, '76. ' Pope: Right. Trujillo: That statement is also in this resolution. At least the copy I've got before me. Pope: Yes, it is, and with that statement in it would be our view that the process might be ' acceptable but I do not believe it would allow the action to be taken that has been explained here today. The proposed resolution, which may in itself be acceptable, we do not believe would allow the proposed action, which is simply a direct ' transfer of 1,000 acre feet,more or less,to the permanent pool, and while I know Steve Miller has offered try to revise the resolution,I'm not sure that ... I don't think that solves our problem. If Colorado wants to proceed with the resolution as ' drafted and similar to as we did last year, with maybe a little tinkering,we might be willing to go along with that,but again,I think we would also like to know how this exchange of water would occur, or where the water could come from to offset ' the transfer into the flood pool. ' Weiss: David? Pope: Yes? Weiss: This is Wendy Weiss. I want to make sure I understand your concerns. I think I understand the legal basis for what you're saying, but what I want to understand is the reason for it. Is your concern that you want this 1,000 acre feet that is being spilled from flood control to be released downstream to Kansas because you think you have a use for it in Kansas and so you object to the water being transferred to ' the permanent pool rather than released for use in Kansas, or is it a concern, not about the physical supply of water, but about the legality or the precedent or something more along those lines. Which are we dealing with here? ' Pope: Actually, Wendy, I guess I'd say both. We think there's ...the water is benefitting users in Kansas,particnlarly through recharge. There has been a substantial G:\ARCA\vMETINGS\1999\SP61499A revLwpd 8 editedDecember 13,2004;printed:December 13,2004