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 3

Janu.BI7 B, 19S4

/ (2) Who should be responsible for reservoir regulation to effeot
) such accumulation concurrent with priority administration?
I,

The answer to the first question is essentially a matter of judgment
on the part of the Administration; As pointed out previously, a change-over
cushion pool as small as 2,000 AF would be impracticable. on the other hand,
experience indicates that it should not be as large as 20,000 AF. A cUlIhion
pool somewhere between these limits, possibly in the range of 10,000 AF, would
seem to be a reasonable criterion. Certainly, the Administration should have
no great difficulty in determining an acceptable figure.

The second question is not so simple to answer since it has some
,lllgal as well BS human aspects. Nonetheless, it too is susceptible of rational
analysis. The Attorney General's opinion gives legal sanction to the storage
of surplus inflow Khile COlorado is under priorit.y administration. The Arkansas
River Ditch Association's position, previollSly referred to, is that there
should be but one responsibility while the reservoir is "emptY" and that the
stilte Engineer should control the river and reservoir gates until the Admin-
istration discontinues priority administrstion by an official finding that
water is again available for release under Article V-F. Recognition of thue
principles would mean, in effect, that the State Engineer's organization should
exercise the required reservoir control by issuing instructions for manipulating
the John Martin gates during freshets.

That conclusion must be considarerl, necessarily, in the light of
the fact that the state Engineer, under Colorado laws, is not authorized to
impound water. But under the Compact, the AdJllinistration is vested tlith that.
authority. Then why couldn't. the Administration delegate its storage power
to the state Engineer during periods of "emptY" reservoir? Whether t.he state
Engineer would be willing to acoept such a delegation of authority would have
to be determi.!llld but, to !'orestall a legal objection, the delegation might be
termed for .detention" rather than "storage". In effect, then, the state t:ngi-
neer would not be violating his statutory limitations but would be acting on
behalf of and under the express authorization of the Administration.

Now, presuming the State Engineer's accept.ance of the delegation
of authority to detain surplus inflow. what would be the prooedure for dis-
oontinuing priority adminietration, i.e., for resumption of exclusive opera-
tional control by the Administration? Let's assume too, but merely' for the
sake of example, that the cllShion pool has been set at, say, 8,000 AF. The
State Engineer and his organization would, of course, have full knowledge of
precipitation and flow conditions--certainly as much knowledge as the Adm1n1s-
tratiows personnel might have--trom which to fonn estimates of potential yield
at John Martin. If and when these estimates indicated in the ju~nt of the
State Engineer that the 8,000 AF figure was likely to be attaine , he would be
required to give notice of such prediction to the Administration. Thereupon
the Administration would make an appropriate fin~, under Artiole V-F, of
the re-availability of water for release. In ot er words, the same procedure
that is now applied in the case of a predicted "empty" reservoir would be applied
to a predicted us~able reservoir. except that in the latter CBse the prediction
would emanate from the state Engineer.

//