WSP05434

• File Number: 8111.200
• Description: Arkansas River Compact Administration
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 1/8/1954
• Title: Notes for Revision of ARCA Rules and Regulation
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

;..

"~ .""

o
en
o
f-

Page 2

January 8, 1954

would revert to the same basis as prevails when there is a substantial quantity
of water in the conservation pool, say from 20,000 Ai' upwardll. But if the
tsmporary surplus accumulating from a Il\l1llIIIsr freshet amounted to only 2,000 Ai',
demands by Colorado and Kansas under Article V-B could and probably would ex-
haust the storage in 24 hours, thereby necessitating a repetition of the pro-
cedure of "finding" an imminent empty reservoir and notifying the state Engineer
to reswne administration on the basis of decreed priorities. ObviOUSly, such
an on-again, off-again procedure with its inherent potential for confusion
and misunderstanding might have to be repeated a number of times during a
period of unsettled swmner weather. It is noteworthy, however, that this very
procedure, which has besn found unworkable in actual practice, was envisioned
in the formulation of the Compact. (See p 14-77 of Record, Colorado-Kansas-
Arkansas River Compact Commission.)

As mentioned above, our Secretary, acting under the supervision of
ths Operations Committee, developed a working procedure to cope with the sum-
mer freshets of 1952 and 1953. Ths .improvised modus operandi, though not covered
by specific Administration rules, apparently overcame. the difficulty arising
from the state Engineer's lack of authority to store water. It had the serious
defect, however, of being governed by the Administration's motion of July 22,
1952, which established a permissible river flow up to a maximum of 2,000 cfs
to be passed through John Martin Dam. On the few occasions when near-ma:x1mwn
outflow uas permitted a lesser quantity of water was detained in the reservoir
than would have been conservable with smaller outflow. Hence, this procedure
tended, at least theoretic~, to prolong the condition of "emptyft reservoir
and the burden imposed thereby on junior upstream appropriators. Moreover,
it was held by the Attorney General of Colorado, in his opinion of December 4,
1953, that, in view of the provisione of Article V-O, no river now could be
passed for the benefit of Kansas while decreed priorities are in effect in
Colorado, i.e., while the reservoir i8 llempty."

The Attorney General's opinion, just cited, in effect condemned the
Administration' 8 motion of July 22, 1952. Accordingly, the Administration
rescinded its action on December 22, 1953. Although that rescission has voided
a source of operational difficulty and removed a cause for criticism, it has
left an hiatus insofar as specific operating rules and regulations are C0ncerned.
It is that hiatus which the Administration now faces.

The crux of the e:x:isting situation is the need for a definitive pro-
cedure for implementing the second part of Article V-F, viz, "Such priority
administration b,y Colorado shall be continued until the Administration finds
that water is again available in the conservation pool for release as provided
in this Compact.D The Attorney General of Colorado'S opinion of December 4,
1953, holds that the above language "clearly contemplates that water shall be
stored in the reservoir concurrently with the use of water in Water District
No. 67 under priority administration." Two pertinent questions, on which a
definitive procedure must be based, arise from that opinion:

(1) How much water should be accUllD1lated to make practicable the
discontinuance of priority administration?

:-./~