BOARD01223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 27-28,1999, Agenda Item 16.g. Page 2 (WRIR 96-4291) documenting the results of Phase 1 of the study. In a June 1997 memo the CWCB staff summarized the results of Phase I, and concluded that without further evidence from the PRWCD, there appeared to be no point in pursuing Phase 2 of the study. Since that time the participants have all agreed that no better information could be developed during a second phase of the study. In a letter dated October 29, 1998 the District was asked to concur in deauthorization of the remaining transit loss study funds. The District responded prior to the November 1998 Board Meeting, and through one of their consultants, Dr. Jeris Danielson, appeared at that meeting to state that they had an alternate, but related use for the funds and asked the Board not to deauthorize the project at this time. DISCUSSION The PRWCD had initially hoped that the transit loss study would provide a basis for more efficient exchanges from the Arkansas River up to Trinidad Reservoir, thereby improving the limited water supply available to the Trinidad Project. Since Phase 1 of the study has concluded that the existing exchange calculation can not be improved upon the PR WCD is still exploring its options to improve proj ect operation. A related issue arises from the Operating Principles for the project which currently require that the PRWCD allocate its irrigation supply by "an equitable share... after allowance ... for individual ditch transportation losses ... not [to] exceed the irrigation requirements at the farm headgate ..." (Art. IV.C.2.). To date the District has had neither the information nor a sufficient water supply to accomplish an allocation based on ditch system efficiencies and crop needs. The District and the US Bureau of Reclamation now believe it may be possible to improve the effectiveness of the District's water supply by better determining irrigation needs and diversion requirements on a ditch by ditch basis. Further, a study to determine the basis for an allocation of water based on irrigation requirements might be useful in addressing issues raised during the negotiation of changes to the current Operating Principles. The State of Kansas, which has the right to review and approve the Operating Principles, has expressed concern over the PR WCD' s failure to strictly follow the provisions dealing with allocation of the irrigation supply. Staffhas informally conferred with the Attorney General's Office and does not believe the language in HB95-1155 would allow a for study of District irrigation system efficiency, therefore an amendment of the original purposes is required. The study has not yet been scoped or designed, but as currently discussed would certainly be a cooperative effort between the District and Reclamation, and perhaps the US Dept. of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service. Cost-sharing by the District would be required. The Board could assist the District in this effort to potentially , . ~ . . .. C,,,kMlU.EIOClEI<Ell.AL\ooMWMDI\_IJ6<lWPll J....;,.lI.l...