Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />1)"1.' <br />..i:., <br /> <br />The Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District also became actively involved in <br />the review process following the issuing of the initial draft report. <br /> <br />On February 5, 1987, the interested parties met in Denver to discuss the direc- <br />tion of the review. The Bureau of Reclamation representatives left this meeting <br />believing that the following general consensus had been reached: <br /> <br />1. A new draft report would be issued. <br /> <br />2. A tabulation of operational data for the years of the review period would be <br />developed including a reconstruction, as necessary, to account for abnormalities <br />such as the July 1, 1981 change in the Trinidad Reservoir area capacity table. <br /> <br />3. The impacts of a transfer of water from the model right to the joint use <br />pool and the storage of winter water under the direct flow rights would be <br />determined by adjusting the operation study shown in the 1964 Study to reflect <br />this administration of water rights and comparing the results. <br /> <br />4. The effects of the District not acquiring certain water rights initially <br />assumed to be part of the project water supply would be analyzed. <br /> <br />5. The State of Colorado IIou1d develop and submit for review a criteria and pro- <br />cedure for storing and releasing flood flows. <br /> <br />6. The District would develop, and submit for review, procedures for assuring <br />that only appropriate lands are irrigated and that only a reasonable amount of <br />water was diverted to project lands. <br /> <br />During the course of the February 5, 1987 meeting, the State of Kansas <br />questioned whether the operating principles permit project water to be used on <br />lands other than those specifically stipulated in the operating principles, even <br />if the total irrigated acreage did not exceed the maximum permitted by the prin- <br />ciples. <br /> <br />Following the February 5, 1987 meeting, extensive studies were done in <br />accordance with the Bureau's understanding of the consensus reached during <br />the February 5, 1987 meet i ng. Resu lts of these studi es were shown in the <br />second draft report of the Tri n i dad PrOject Pri nc i p 1 e Revi ew, dated December <br />1987. <br /> <br />The interested part i es met in Denver on February 16, 1988 to di scuss the <br />technical aspects of the second draft report and again on April 27, 1988 to <br />discuss policy issues. During the course of these meetings, Kansas officials <br />claimed that they had not agreed in the February 5, 1987 meeting to evaluate <br />the transfer of water out of the Model Right and the storage of winter water <br />under the direct flow decrees over the 1925 through 1957 periOd using the 1964 <br />study as the basis. Kansas particularly objected to the exclusion of an in- <br />depth analysis of these water rights administration practices over the 1979 <br />through 1984 review period. Kansas questioned the use of a 19,500 acre-footY <br /> <br />~/The 39,000 acre-foot joint-use pool is expected to fill with sediment over <br />the life of the project. The 1961 and 1964 Studies used 19,500 acre-feet as <br />average joint-use pool. <br /> <br />7 <br />