Laserfiche WebLink
<br />expect to bring this matter belore the Administration at a later date. <br />Mr. Cooley again returned to the report 01 the Operations Com- <br />mittee and called upon Mr. Jesse to suggest language which would <br />clarify the distinction between actual state line flows and the releases <br />of water Crom the Kansas account in John Martin Reservoir. Mr. Jesse <br />suggested that beneath Table IX in his November 12, 1982 report, which <br />table is entitled "Releases to State 01 Kansas, A.Ft.," the lollowing <br />sentence be inserted: <br />During various periods when Kansas demanded release 01 <br />water Irom John Martin Reservoir, a total of 32,769.35 acre-feet <br />was released and a total of 40,104 acre-feet from all sources <br />arrived at the Coolidge gage during the above periods. <br />Mr. Olomon moved, seconded by Mr. Genova, that this sentence be <br />added to Mr. Jesse's report at the indicated location. There being no <br />discussion, the motion passed upon the affirmative vote 01 both states. <br />Mr. Gibson then moved, seconded by Mr. Genova, that the <br />Administration approve and receive into the record the report of the <br />Operations Committee, including Mr. Jesse's November 12, 1982, report <br />as amended by the preceeding motion. There being no discussion, the <br />motion passed upon the allirmative vote of both states. <br />Mr. Cooley then asked that the Administration turn to agenda item <br />14 concerning Trinidad Reservoir. Mr. Bentrup indicated that Kansas <br />wished to offer a resolution concerning Trinidad Reservoir I whereupon <br />he asked Mr. Campbell to read the proposed resolution into the record <br />(see Attaclunent Hl. Upon the completion 01 the reading 01 the <br />proposed resolution. Mr. Bentrup moved, seconded by Mr. Olomon, the <br />adoption 01 the resolution. <br />Mr. McDonald indicated at this point that he had a substitute motion <br />to offer in the way of an alternative resolution to that presented by <br />Kansas. He passed out this resolution (see Attachment j) and briefly <br />summarized its contents, whereupon he moved, seconded by Mr. <br />Genova, as a substitute motion for the motion belore the ad- <br />ministration the adoption of Colorado's resolution concerning Trinidad <br />Reservoir (i.e., Attachment j). Mr. McDonald then read the proposed <br />Colorado resolution in full. <br />Discussion ensued at length about the Colorado resolution. Mr. <br />Gibson noted that the third whereas clause in the proposed Colorado <br />resolution was not, in his opinion, a true statement. He asked that the <br />record so reflect. Mr. Bentrup indicated that Kansas' fundamental <br />concern with the operation of Trinidad Reservoir since 1!/79 had been <br />that it violated the Five Kansas Conditions 011967 in that no more than <br />20,000 acre-feet 01 water could be stored under the Model Decree in <br />Trinidad Reservoir at any given time. <br />Mr. McDonald responded by noting that there had been no showing <br />by Kansas that the waters of the Arkansas River had at any time been <br />materially depleted in usable quantity or availability for use to the <br />water users in Colorado and' Kansas. He also noted that Kansas had <br />thus far presented no facts which contradicted any of the information <br />which Colorado officials had provided to the Administration or to <br />Kansas state officials. Finally, Mr. McDonald observed that to the <br /> <br />44 <br />