WSP04401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( \... . He said he was confident that the committee's reference was to "any proposed plan for re-regulation" of the native waters of the river in which Kansas would be entitled to share. He admitted the language of the committee comments "Ias not concise or clear. He promised to advise the Kansas committee of the situ- a:;iol'. to have them revise their statement so as not to imply objection to the :.;cp~rtation project itself. Anticipat.ing a change of language in a redrafted comment of the Kansas o.J,,~j.aJ_ advisory committee to approve the Fryingpan-.Arl:ansas River Project, .;;h.f: C;,,:nmittee reviewed and adopted the follO"lring recommendation to be sub- ,n:'.tted to the Arkansas River Compact Ad.':linistration at its meeting on Tuesday, July 24 as the basis for the Ad.~inistration's comments on the proposed Frying- pan-Arkansas Project. "The Arkansas River Compact Administration submits these com- ments and recommendations to the Governors of Colorado and Kansas re- specting the proposed Initial Development, Gunnison-Arkansas Project, Roaring Fork Diversion, Colorado, namely: "1. The Administration understands that the project plan proposes: . "(a) The importation by appropriate project works of approxi- mately 70,000 acre-feet of water a year from the Colo- rado River basin to the Arkansas River basin for supple- mental irrigation and domestic water supplies in Colo- rado and for the production of hydroelectric energy. "(b) In connection with such importation of water and its regulatiu;1 in the Arkansas hiver Valley by project norks, the re-regulation of native waters of the Arkansas f.iver (the term 'native waters', as herein used, being these waters coveren and defined by Art. 111-8 of the Arkrun- sas River Co.7r:J'?:"Co \ .. "2. The interstate wate:o:- r.J~.a"'ions of Colorado and Kansas ,lith respect to the Arkansas River d0 not justify any objection to the proposed project development for the importation of Colorado River water (described in sub-paragraph (a) above). , "3. The re-regulation of native waters of the Arkansas River (native waters being as above mentioned) concerns the Arkansas River Com- pact Administration and both Colorado and Kansas in complying with the provisions of the Arkansas River Compact and maintaining the benefits and obligations of the two states under that Compact. To that end, it is recommended to the Governors of Colorado and Kansas, and expressed as a policy of the Arkansas River Compact Administration, that the Initial Development, Gunnison-Arkansas Project, noaring Fork Diversion, Colorado, as set forth in Pro- ject Planning Report No. 7-8a, 49-1 of the Bureau of Reclamation, be approved; provided, however, that there shall be no re-regu- lation of native waters of the Arkansas River as proposed in such report until a plan of operation, rules, regulations, procedures, and agreements in furtherance thereof, including any pertinent