Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br />'. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-::.hey were being developed and that. Kansas gave its accent to :::.he,~: <br />subject to five conditions. The project contemplated a rejcc~io <br />in the then irrig2.te.:~. acreage, \>"oich has in f~c:t occurred, to <br />provide a full water supply to the project lands. Necessarily, <br />the project contemplated carryover storage and cO:1te~01~~~d <br />storage in the reservoir in excess of 20,000 ~2re-feet. <br /> <br />Mr. paddoc% stated that it is the position of the State of <br />Colorado that the operating criteria have been complied ;,....ith <br />each and every year and that no more water than the Purgatorire <br />Water Conservancy District was entitled to store under its <br />various water rights had been sto:ed. He also stat~d that unde~ <br />the Arkansas River Compact construction of dams and reservoirs is <br />permitted so long as the waters of th~ A=kansas River are not <br />materially depleted theceby. He stated that it is the posi~.ion <br />of the State of Colorado that the Trinidatl project has caus~d no <br />such material depletion to the waters of the i\rkansas Ri v~r. <br /> <br />With respect to the Fryingpan-Arkansas project, Mr. Paddock <br />aS3erted that Kansas misinterpreted the Arkansas Rivet" Com;::::3.ct <br />and the authority of the Administ.ration. He pointe,'; out that in <br />paragraph number 3 of the full resolution adopted by the <br />Administ:::ation in 1951, the following statement appcat"s: <br /> <br />... that regulation of the D('\.:-.ive \vat"?-rs of <br />the Ar}:ansas concerns the Arkansas River <br />Compact Adminis~~ation and both Colorado and <br />Ka.rlsas in com.!? lying with the provi:=; ions 0 f <br />the Arkansas River Compact. in rnainc..aining the <br />benefits and Q:.'_igatiorLs of the tlNO states <br />under that CO[ui?act. Tc) that end it is <br />reco:n.:neL:~:.ed to the GovE:!r":1or:~ of Ka:1sas and <br />Colo:c(~do and expressed as a policy of the <br />Arka:--.sas River Compact. Administ.ration th2.t <br />there be no reregulation of :lativ2 waters. <br /> <br />Mr. Paddock stated that that pan,sraph makes clear that the <br />Administration understood at that time, as it should underst~nd <br />now, that Lt does not administer water rights in Colorado ar.~ <br />that in 1"51 it was only ma~ing ~ policy statement and <br />recommendation to the Gover:10rs of the sto.tes, 2nd did not <br />purport to bind them. Mr. Paddock concluded that Kansas' <br />interpretation of the effect of the Administration's 1951 <br />resolution is erroneous. <br /> <br />The next i~em on tl1e agenda was the 0resentation bv the <br />Corps of Engineers. Mr. Cooley requested .:hat Col. Emo~y Pylant, <br />Albuquerque D~_s~rict, make his presentation. Col. PYlant <br />read a prep~ statem?nt into the recor~. This statement :.~ <br />included as A~~achmen~ L. <br /> <br />Considerable discussion then e~:sued among ::l.embecs of cf"':.e <br />Adminis-tration, Corps pe:csonnel, a:'.-_l Mr. Bob Jesse, Colorado <br />Division Engineer, concerning the flo~d control space iD Tri~ija5 <br /> <br />-3- <br />