Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />days how they currently allocate project water and propose modifications that may <br />satisfy USSR and Kansas. <br /> <br />E. Temporary regulation of flood flows: <br />The conservation pool (irrigation and joint use space) at Trinidad Reservoir is available <br />to temporarily detain high inflows (even below the rates specified by the Corps of <br />Engineers' reservoir control manual) with the potential to cause downstream damage. <br />The 1988 Review Report recommended that criteria for the temporary detention and <br />subsequent release of these inflows be developed. These criteria are needed to <br />assure downstream water users that detained inflows are released in a time and <br />manner that does not increase depletions above pre-project conditions. It was agreed <br />that management of these short term flood inflows, which does not utilize the officially <br />designated flood control pool at the reservoir, does not involve either the Corps or the <br />PRWCD, but rather is assigned by the Operating Principles and Colorado law to the <br />Colorado State Engineer. Colorado stated that it believed that the Division 2 Engineer <br />had developed such criteria, but that the hydrologic events requiring application of the <br />criteria had in fact been rather infrequent. Colorado also stated it did not think the <br />specific criteria used by the Division Engineer needed to be a part of the Operating <br />Principles, but that it should be made available to and reviewed by downstream water <br />users, including Kansas. Within the next 60 days Colorado will write a letter describing <br />its criteria to USSR, Kansas, the PRWCD, and water users below the project. <br /> <br />F. Winter storage under direct flow priorities: <br />The issue is whether the storage of direct flow priority water should count as part of and <br />be limited by the 20,000 acre-foot transferred Model storage right, or whether this water <br />can be separately stored in the 39,000 acre-foot joint use pool, The current Operating <br />Principles have been interpreted to prohibit winter storage in the joint use space unless <br />John Martin Reservoir is spilling. In the 1996 Review Report, USSR stated that the <br />Operating Principles should not be so interpreted, and has proposed clarifying <br />language in the proposed amendments to expressly allow winter storage under the <br />direct flow priorities in the joint use space separate and distinct from storage under the <br />Model right. In its 1988 Review Report, USSR modified its 1964 planning studies to <br />evaluate the impacts of storage in the joint use space of water historically used in the <br />practice of winter irrigation and concluded that there were no additional depletions <br />compared to pre-project levels. Kansas stated that it had concerns with using the <br />methodology of the 1964 study as was done in the 1988 modified study, and could not <br />approve new operations or amendments that relied solely on those studies. <br /> <br />Kansas said it needed 6 months to define the type of study it believed would be <br />appropriate to evaluate the potential downstream impacts of winter storage beyond the <br />20,000 acre-foot Model right, and also the procedures that would be necessary for <br />continued monitoring and verification of no increased depletions should the Operating <br />Principles be so amended. The PRWCD indicated that the six month time frame <br />suggested by Kansas would only be acceptable if Kansas and the USSR gave <br /> <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />C:\SRMllLER\ARKAN$AS\TRINIOAD\980PPRN1.MEM <br />Printed: Mardi 2, 1998 <br />