Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />, <br />1 <br /> <br />following year for example. Then what also seems. and [think that this is <br />what Carl eluded to earlier, to carry that forward another year seems to <br />be stacking water up that we really begin to wonder if that water really <br />would have been used, had not storage program not been in place. <br />Mr. Thomson: We'll cross that later this year. I think that it is better to <br />stack it up than to waste it and maybe our waste is your benefit. <br />Mr. Pope: You may have a point there. <br />Mr. Thomson: I am going to the Colorado River meeting next week <br />and I between Arizona and CalHornia and Utah and <br />Coloradu. No, I think that is much better to have it and identify it and be <br />able to use it. Water still flows downstream by gravity and will <br />sometimes flow upstream to money, but. I don't know what we are going <br />to have this year. Who can say -I have seen all kinds of different reports <br />as to when the wet cycle is going to end, we get back into our 5 years of <br />dry cycle and things like that. But there has never been any secret as to <br />how these accounts have been carried forward and you folks are on the <br />mailing list you get it and so on. I just think that it's great. Now that our <br />big problem, Mr. Pope. and for the Bureau. when we got hit with this in <br />Leadville if our buckets are full why bring more Colorado River water <br />through the mountains. And this year fortunately California wants us to <br />bring it through because they still have some nooding conditions on the <br />Colorado. I think that we would be derelict, and our district would be <br />derelict, in not bringing every drop that we can bring through the <br />mountain and that is going to add to it and the people in Colorado Springs. <br />believe me - the reason they have so much in this because the pipeline <br />has not been operating the last two years but they will start taking it <br />through the pipeline come about early July. So we will get that into <br />balance, but, right now, based upon the actual experiences and also with <br />the Homestake water which takes up some space in Turquoise, I just wish <br />Turquoise and Pueblo were twice the size they are. That \\.'ould not make <br />good economics on the cost/benefit ratio but these last few years they <br />would have paid for themselves - really just to be able to store that <br />amount of water. <br />Mr. Pope: We certainly understand the explanation you are giving <br />Tom, and we appreciate that and I hope you don't misinterpret our <br />comments, but if an analysis that can determine possible injury to <br />Kansas isn't something that we feel that we have role in actually <br />approving, as compared to just being on the recei",ing end of information <br />and the mailing list, I think there is quite a bit different between those two <br />scenarios. And [ think that is the purpose of asking for the item to be on <br />the agenda is to truly try to get ourselves better informed so that again <br />maybe we won't be raising questions where they are not needed. But in <br />the same light, [ think we are entitled to know for sure that Kansas will <br />not be injured by the program. I fully acknowledge that winter storage <br />makes a lot of sense and there can be tremendous benefits from it in <br />terms of the efficiency of water use, but, as you alluded to earlier, <br />sometimes what is efficient for one person may not be the best. for <br />someone else down below. <br />Mr. Thompson: We are fully convinced, and welcome the study that <br /> <br />-Blank spaces indicate that the tape recording was not <br />understandable. <br /> <br />66 <br />