Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It was agreed to proceed by looking at USSR's recommendations in both the 1988 and <br />1996 Review Reports, as well as the proposed Operating Principles issued by USSR in <br />Nov. 1997. From these sources the following issues were identified and assignments <br />made for potential resolution: <br /> <br />A. Rollover: <br />The practice of carrying over water stored under the Model right in the joint use space <br />at the end of the irrigation season has been discontinued and there is no proposal to <br />revive it. <br /> <br />B. Stock water allowance: <br />The proposal to bypass reservoir inflows at rates larger than 5 cfs up to an annual <br />volume limit of 1,200 acre-feet appears to be conceptually OK to all parties, but how <br />daily stream gains below Trinidad Dam are factored into the annual volumetric stock <br />water allowance must be resolved. Kansas will draft proposed language to address <br />their concerns within the next 60 days. <br /> <br />C. Acreage reduction and classification: <br />Kansas requested clarification on how the acreage reduction was calculated since there <br />were minor discrepancies in some of the numbers in the proposed amendments. <br />However it was agreed that the maximum total acreage authorized for irrigation in any <br />one season should be 19,499 acres based on PRWCD and USSR explanations. It was <br />further agreed that the prohibition on irrigation of class 6W lands should be removed. <br />The PRWCD will provide the following within 60 days: <br />1) Final reconciliation of irrigated acreages by ditch, including if possible the further <br />adjustment that might be necessitated by ongoing discussions with the River <br />Canyon Ranch. <br />2) A proposed procedure for identifying and verifying the actual acres to be irrigated <br />each season. The procedure will probably require maps, ditch-by-ditch summaries <br />and reconciliation with crop census data. <br /> <br />D. Limit diversions to "ideal headgate requirement": <br />The current Operating Principles require the PRWCD to allocate project water <br />deliveries by an "ideal headgate requirement" based on calculated crop consumptive <br />needs and individual delivery system efficiencies. Instead PRWCD delivers water pro <br />rata to ditches based on irrigated acres. Kansas contended that the failure to use the <br />"ideal headgate requirement" results in over diversion and increased depletions below <br />the project area. However, USSR's studies show no increase in depletions compared <br />to pre-project conditions under the current operations of the project. USSR still <br />believes the PRWCD should allocate water between ditches using the theoretical <br />diversion requirement, but the PRWCD questioned the value of this. Colorado stated <br />that the PRWCD must either comply with this proviSion or propose changes that it can <br />and will implement. USSR offered to help fund the analysis needed to move toward <br />more efficient operation and allocation procedures. The PRWCD will explain within 60 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />C:\SRMILlER\ARKANSAS\TRIN1DAD\980PPRN1.MEM <br />Printed: March 2.1998 <br />