WSP01376 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/ , .- ~-"... Q Gt,;,JO WIlile it is not our intent to make interpretation of the Arkansas River CompaCt, however, oecause the qJestion of injury to downstream users is inse~araDle from the compact, it is necessary to make certain assumptions about the meaning of the compact. The principle assumption is that the cor,lpact does not prohibit changes in the use and regulation of water within tile State of Colorado, provided such action does not materi ally depl ete tIle 4uantity of water aVi;lilable to the users in the State of Kansas. Under tllis assumption, the ArKansas River Compact, by itself, would not prohibit Colurado from storing waters of the Purgatoire River that had historically been appl ied to lands witldn the Trinidad Project, provided such storage is carried out in a manner that does not deplete the inflows to John Martin Reservoir. Based on the above, th~ Bureau of Reclamation concludes that the Trinidad Operatin!;j . Princililes must provide for optimum us~ of water within the Project area consi stent witn th., protecti on of downstream water rights. To tilt) extent tnat lone Operating Principles do not provide for optimum use of the water or do not protect tile rights of downstream users, the Operating Prlnciples must be amended. Pursuant to Kansas Condition 2, any proposed amendment to tne Operating Principles I11Jst be submitted tu the State of Ki;lnsas and many others for review and approval; however, Kansas is obli- gated to approve any proposed amendment that will not cause "material deple- tion" in tne context of the Arkansas River Compact. The State of Colorado and the Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District must diligently comply with the ten11S and conditions of the Operating Principles in effect at the time. To the extent that tne terms and conditions of the Operating Principles are not specific, the studies and analysis used in developing the principles or amendments thereto must also be used as the basis of interpretation. These conclusions provide the basis for the following discussions of the studies reported in tnis cnapter. The studies identified as Case 1, Case 2 and Case 3 (see Table 4) pruvide some useful information on the impacts of the transfer of water from the Model Right and the storage of winter water under the direct flow rights as they actually occurred during the 1979-84 review period. In considering tne results of these three studies, it must be remerrbered that a substan- tial part of the Project lands were IIOt irrigated during roost of the study periOd. Case 3 shows the difference in actual inflow to Jolin Martin Reservoir, as compared to tne inflow that would tlave occurred had water not been trans- ferred out of toe Nodel Rignt and had the winter water been cnaryed to toe Muae 1 R i got. 0 f tnese three studi.:s, Case 3 best rep resents the ac tu a 1 impacts resulting from toe aepartures frum tile intent of toe Operating Princi pl es. Case 2 snows the difference in tile actual John Martin Reservoir inflow as com...ared to the inflow tnat wou"td have occurred haG the full 19,717 acres of Triniuad Project lands be~n irri!;jatea and had the transfer out uf the Model Ri!;jht not taken place and had the winter storage been charged to tne Mode 1 R i gn t. Case 2 represents tile impacts to the inflow to John Marti n Reservoir unaer the assumption that the compact does not prohibit the storage of water that otherwise would have been applied to the project lands. Case is a refinement of Case 2 in tnat it is not based on the 25 "