WSP04401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

",' ..' . . It t \. the statement is a satisfactory, acceptable conclusion but is unsupported in the text of the report. 2. The report is based principally On studiss in the AIkansas River Valley from 1911 to,1944. He said, "\nW stop at :l.944? The project report is dated 1950. There was material change in the regimen of the river, from 1?1-!7 on, as the result of the operation of John Martin Conservation Pool". 3. In the appendix on water supplies, there appear to be conflicting stp.tGments on evaporation losses. , These should be clm"ilied and explained. Chairman Kramer said he believed these discrepancies were a potential ~ource of future misinterpretation and misunderstanding. He said the proposals of re-regulation of water at Pueblo and re-"I'e'gu- lation of water for Great Plains storage were not sufficiently in detail. He advised that the Administration has a responsibility and a role to perform in surveying all agreements relating to John Martin Reservoir and that the Ad- ministration should pass judgment to make certain that no provisions of the Arkansas River Compact were being violated. He said he assumed it was the Administration's responsibility to consider itself an interested party to all agreements to check such details. Ben Powell, Pueblo, Bureau engineer who drafted the project report, stated that the plan prOvided for taking care of evaporation loss out of the water which would otherwise be consumed in Colorado, with no detriment to the State of Kansas. Rep. Stone commented that regardless of the interest of the Adminis- tration in Arkansas River water matters, the A~~~istration does not have a veto power over the responsibilities and obligatior.s of the signatory states. He further commented that the Administration ~ould not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial powers, but could only make findings of fact. Chairman Kramer said the Aaministration must do its part and should exercise a review of the evidence of all other parties to make sure that the administration of the Compact is fully protected and adhered to. He said this procedure would assure complete cooperation in a formalized way. Rep. Stone said this position of the Administration should not be interpreted to mean that the A~~istration would determine whether or not the State of COlorado, for instance, was complying with compact provisions. Chairman Kramer said that his recommendations, as representative of the United States, were two- fold: 1. That the Arkansas River Compact ll.dministration approves and supports the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. 2. That the Administration exercise official scrutiny over all oper- ating plans, regulations and agreerents which affect 'native I waters of the Arkansas hiver, as defined in the Compact, in order to protect all inter- state angles under the compact.