Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />ul <br />I <br /> <br />water in 1983. I am talking about project water that was brought through <br />the mountains that was in the system. I've got a report which will show <br />some of those amounts. I did not bring enough copies for this size of an <br />audience. But I detected from your letters the combination of winter <br />storage is the culprit on that - there is one for each company and the <br />figures that I am going to be talking about are the ones on tbe back. And <br />those are mostly municipal accounts - for instance, on December 30, <br />\983 in Pueblo there were 2<l().000 a.L as compared to 133.000 a.r. on <br />December 30, 1982. That was because most of the entities in 1982 took <br />their project water out and practicalJy all of their winter water, but <br />because of the wet conditions in 1983 they didn't take their project water <br />and some winter water that they hadn't used either. Now that then got us <br />up in to what is known by the Bureau and the Corps of Engineers as the <br />jOint use pool which is designed in the construction of Pueblo Dam. That <br />is when you get above 264. On March 15 we are 283,000 a.f. and that was in <br />the joint use pool and that's exactly according to the plan of operation and <br />so on. But that wasn't all winter stored water. It was just that winter <br />stored water was part of that total pool. Now that's some of the water <br />released or that was the water that was released that Bob Jesse reported <br />on last week. The entities weren't not able to use it and were not going <br />through the carryover which posed one of the problems last year. We had <br />a meeting with the owners of that water in my office two weeks ago and <br />. they all agreed thaI it would be released. In the meantime. the Bureau <br />and Bob had worked out release on April 13, 14. and 15. that was thaI 5.000, <br />and that was what was known as temporary water. Those are contracts <br />with private entities. Holbrook, Colorado Canal and others have with the <br />Bureau on their other water and that was released. So that is why we got <br />iato joint ose pool, but I just wanted to be sure that particularly the <br />gentlemen from Kansas understood that it wasn't all winter water. 1t was <br />primarily project water that caused that and that's what we are working <br />on right now because as Bob pointed out there is a whale of a big <br />snowpack up there and we know from your estimate right now there is <br />about 80-90,000 aJ. <br />Mr. : 107.000 <br />Mr. Thomson: That is Colorado River water and we are going to bring <br />that through and that is posing an interesting situation, so I hope Mr. <br />Pope that will answer your question on why the joint use pool- it was not <br />the winter storage only. <br />Mr. Pope: I think we understand that Tommy. I think the question <br />goes back maybe a little bit further in terms of the original authorization <br />and how the joint use pool, when and how it was created. If you could <br />elaborate on that [ think it would be helpful. I don'! know if we have ever <br />really seen or understood the whole background on that. I onderstand <br />that it exists but - <br />Mr. Pope: Maybe at a later time. <br />Mr. Thomson: il was well designed and well thought out <br />- there is no doubt about that. <br />Mr. Gibbens: Originally the capacity of Pueblo Dam in the <br />substantiating report for the authorization document, the Pueblo Dam <br /> <br />"'Blank spaces indicate that the tape recording was not <br />understandable. <br /> <br />62 <br />