Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />(e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />112 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />significant differences between Colorado and Kansas both vlith <br />respect to the factual data concerning storage as vlell as wiLh <br />respect to t1.." legal interpretation of what standard goven", <br />Colorado's obligations. <br /> <br />After there was further discussion of stor~ge in Trinidad <br />Reservoir, Mr. t1cDon,cld indicated that he would also like to <br />explore Kansas' alle'jations in the proposed amended reso lutiotl <br />concerning Vlater applicdtion per acre of land. SpecificE\U.y, <br />Mr. 1-1cDonald noted that records aya ilao le to Colot-ado did not <br />support the 4.3 and 4.7 acre-foot per acre application rates S8t <br />forth in the ameDled resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Corrigan explained how he had calculated the amount of <br />water used for irrigation in the Purgatoire \<Iat,er Conservancy <br />District in 1979 and 1980. Mr. Jesse stated that he did not <br />think the procedure" and data uS8d by Mr. Corri'Jan were <br />a0~quate. Considerable discussion ensued. The discussion <br />con,cluded with Kansas agreeing to ':c:ovide the data and the <br />methods "f calculation which olr. Torrigan had used to Mr. Jesse <br />for revic.v. <br /> <br />Mr. McDonald then rrr 'ed, seconded by Mr. Genova, to table <br />the motion to adopt the ar;\ended resolution until after Color,do <br />had had an opportunity to revie", the data submitted by Kans2s. <br />This motion to table was passed upon the affirmative vote of beth <br />states. <br /> <br />Mr. Bentrup then turned to the agenda item concerninJ Puebl,u <br />Reservoir. Mr. McDonald noted that the Administration, at ite <br />December 14, 1982, ma"ting, held directed ,-lr. Cooley to write d <br />letter to the Colorado Stdte Engineer, Dr. Jeris Danielson, <br />requesting data reg,:~rdin3 the operation of Pueblo P,~S2~ '/01 r-. <br />Mr. McDonlld indicated that Mr. Jesse had compile] the requ~:ted <br />informatio on behalf of Dr. Danielson ard had hrouqht it. "~lith <br />him to pres nt to and discuss with the Administr3.tion. <br /> <br />Mr. Bentrup indicated that his recollection of the situation <br />was different than Mr. 11cDonald' s. He stated that Kansas had <br />received adequate information on the pest operation of Puc~lo <br />Reservoir and was not requesting TIDre informat.ion. Rather, ,",r. <br />Bentrup said that Kansas' concern was that a plan of operation <br />tiS referred to in the Administration's July 24,1951, . <br />resolution had not yet been provided to the Administration for <br />approval. He indicated that he thought that requests for further <br />infoX"';\ation were only a delaying tact ;..c. <br /> <br />Mr. l'\cDonald re~'-'onded by noting that ~lr. Cooley's letter to <br />Dr. DanieJ.son reques ~_ng information W2~; sent at the direction of <br />the Administration. lJe reiterated that Colorado Vlished to he,ve <br />Mr. Jesse provide the information requested by the Administration <br />through Mr. Cooley's letter. <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />-.... <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />