BOARD00246 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Arkansas River Compact, unlike other compacts, has no delivery requirement. Rather, the compact aset levels of use, apportioned the use of John Martin Reservoir and set release rates. Kansas' case _initially was fLIed on three points of contention over water operations in Colorado: I) operation of the winter water storage program, 2) operation of Trinidad Reservoir, and 3) the development of wells subsequent to the Compact. The Special Master summarily dismissed Kansas' claim on the frrst two issues, but did fmd some diminution of state line flows as a result of post-compact well development in Colorado. In phase 2 of the case, the Special Master and the Court will detennine the quantities of water or amount of injury. Kansas' model did show - and Colorado's experts agree - that there was some impact on stateline flows from post-compact well pumping. The amount of additional diminution of flows hinged in part on the allowed amount of pumping attributable to pre-compact wells: Kansas sought 11 thousand acre-feet (KAF) annually, Colorado sought 30-35 KAF; the Master set 15 KAF. We will argue that this ruling was punitive, and that Kansas is guilty of "latches", because Kansas did not complain of the alleged injury until 1984 Of 1985 . We also argued that well development in Kansas contributed to the problem, but the Master found that development was primarily in the 1970s. If the Supreme Court accepts the Special Master's report, we'd proceed to the damages phase, to detennine the amount and method of repayment. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide. Who's responsible for payment? The judgement will lie against the State of Colorado, and the political process will decide how the judgement is satisfied. Note that the Federal government has a strong handle on the Arkansas in the fonn of many federal project reservoirs (John Martin, Pueblo, Trinidad). The Court could appoint a Water Master to operate these reservoirs until the judgement is satisfied. Kansas is expected to add recent years' (86-95) depletions when they get the ruling they expect, and would Ahereby be entitled to damages for that additional period until such time as we begin to meet our ~bligation. David Robbins suggested emphatically that we'll best be served by having more accurate and complete well pumping data because the Master was incredulous at our lack of data in this one significant area. This may indeed have worked to our detriment as an overestimate of the amount of pumping. There followed some discussion between David Robbins and the Committee members regarding the merits of paying Kansas with water, vs paying in dollars. Jeris Danielson asked about the role of the Committee on intrastate impacts vs interstate impacts. Jim Lochhead responded that he felt the Committee could go as far as it wants to, and suggested a step-by-step approach to work through these issues with the understanding that we cannot solve them all at once. Status of Rules & Regulations Hal Simpson mentioned that there seemed to be some progress in improving the [amount of] replacement water available both to compensate for effects in Colorado, and effects at the stateline. He described the recent rules promulgated. The new rules require large capacity wells in the Arkansas River basin to submit records of well pumping. The purpose of these records is to acquire adequate Mata on pumping to assist in the defense in Phase 2 of the trial. The well owner has the option of e~ther ~stalling and) operating a well meter, or computing pumping volume based upon a pump test and a power coefficient. Hal said that he expects. to see higher power coefficients than were determined in previous studies and thus less efficient wells pumping lesser volumes of water. He also expects the rules to be important in allocating costs of being in a replacement plan or organization. He described