Laserfiche WebLink
<br />that the continued existence and use of those wells was a separate issue from <br />the Keesee Ditch transfer which was before the Engineering Commirree. <br />Dennis Montgomery indicated that the State of Colorado could not agree to <br />a finding by the Compact Administration for the transfer of the Keesee <br />Ditch, that would require a dry up of the six wells to be used on the 500 net <br />additional acres irrigated by the wells. Colorado did state, however, that if <br />Keesee Ditch modified its plan for the proposed transfer and offered to dry <br />up all of the wells which were to be used for the 500 acres. it would not object. <br />Colorado further staled thai the wells were junior rights subject to existing <br />and future regulations by the State Engineer of all wells in the Arkansas <br />River Valley. <br />Colorado also indicated that it felt that whether the Keesee Djrch transfer <br />would cause depletion oradverse affect to the ditch diversion rights from the <br />Arkansas River in Colorado Water District No. 67 and Kansas is a separate <br />issue from whether the Compact Administration should grant Keesee Ditch <br />a storage account in John Martin Reservoir. The first issue is essentially one <br />of determining whether there will be any injury resulting fro~ [he transfer, <br />the second Issue is a discretionary matter for the Compact Administration. <br />After discussion it was also agreed that Jake Broyles was attempting to <br />retain the prime 500 acres out of the 1,900 acres, rather that the 500 acres <br />developed after the 1,400 acres were developed by the surface ditch right. <br />Kansas and Colorado agreed that when and if[he transfer isactivaled lhat <br />Broyles will hencefonh no longer divert water from the Arkansas River for <br />irrigation. <br />The next Keesee Ditch issues discussed by the Engineering Committee <br />were: <br />I) Whether Keesee Ditch should be given a storage account in John <br />Martin Reservoir. <br />2) Whal t}'pe of account it should be? and. if so, <br />3) Whether any storage charge should be imposed on water stored in <br />such an account. <br />After observing that other ditches diverting water above John Martin <br />Reservoir paid a 35% storage charge. in water, a monitary charge for use of <br />storage was deemed inappropriate unless tied to the additional administra- <br />tive and accounting expenses of thc Compact Administration. The equities <br />of allowing Keesee Ditch possibly a free storage account when other ditches <br />were paying storage charges, and the possible beneficiaries of storage <br />charges led the Engineering Committee to decide that whether a storage <br />charge should be imposed wasa policy question that should be decided by the <br />entire Administration, rather than a technical question for the Engineering <br />Committee. <br />The next Keesee Ditch issue that was discussed was whether Keesee Ditch <br />should be allowed a "Pre-accumulation" account. After great discussion <br />amongst the persons present. it was felllhallhe "Pre-accumuJation"account <br />desired by Keesee Ditch was being requested so that Keesee Ditch could <br />transfer water which was already in its 1980 Agreement account, upstream in <br />the spring when conditions were favorable and before it could be transferred <br />into its Transfer account because of monthly limitations or the reduced rate <br />authorized for the Iransfer. <br /> <br />32 <br />