WSP04401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. - . . ( ( '-' the statement is a satisfactory, acceptable conclusion but is unsupported in the text of the report. 2. The reP9rt is based principally on studies in the Arkansas River Valley from 1911 to 1944. He said, "Why stop at 1944? The project report is dated 1950. There was material cha:lge in the regimen of the river, from 1947 on, as the result of the operation of John Martin Conservation Pool". 3. In the appendix on water supplies, there appear to be conflicting statements on evaporation losses. These should be clarified and explained. Chairman Kramer said he believed these discrepancies were a potential source of future misinterpretation and misunderstanding. He said the proposals of re-regulation of water at Pueblo and re~regu- lation of water for Gre~t ?lains storage were not sufficiently in detail. He advised that the Adminis0r~tion has a responsibility and a role to perform in surveying all agreements relating to Jo~~ Martin Reservoir and that the Ad- ministration should pass judgment to make certaL~ that no provisions of the Arkansas F~ver Compact ~ere oeing 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 Q~t of the water which would othe~,ise be consumed in Colorado, with no d7triment to the State of Kansas. Rep. Stone commented that regardless of the interest of the Adminis- tration in Arkansas River water matters, the AdmL.istration does not have a veto power over the responsibilities and obligations of the signato~J states. He further commented that the Administration could not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial powers, but could only make findings of fact. Chairman Kramer said the Administration 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 fonnalized way. Rep. Stone said this position of the Administration should not be interpreted to mean that the Ad~istration ~ould determine whether or not the State of Colorado, for instance, was comi'1~'in6 "ith compact provisions. Chainnan Kramer sai.d that his recommendations, as representative of the United States, were two- fold: 1. That the arkansas River Compact hdministration approves and supports the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. 2. That the Administration exercise official scrutiny over all oper- ating plans, regulations and agreements 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.