Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Administration's resolution of March 28, 1985. Shortly <br /> <br />after the Committee was constituted, the states agreed in a <br /> <br />telephone conference on April 10, 1985, to draft a proposed <br />scope of work for its allegations of compact violation. The <br />initi~l proposals were submitted by Kansas on May 6, 1985, <br />and by Colorado on May 7, 1985. <br /> <br />The basic difference in the proposals was that Kansas' <br /> <br />proposal was directed toward analyses of specific causes of <br />depletion. For example, Kansas' proposal would have di- <br /> <br />rected the Committee to compile data in order to analyze <br />postcompact depletio~s resulting from the operation of <br /> <br />Trinidad Reservoir. In response, Colorado took the position <br /> <br />..' <br /> <br />-r!.- <br /> <br />that the appropriate comparison to make pursuant to Article <br />IV(D) of the Compact was between pre compact and postcompact <br />flows into John Martin Reservoir, the theory being that <br />Kansas was apportioned only 4Q% of the water flowing into <br /> <br />the John Martin conservation pool. Kansas, on the other <br /> <br />hand, maintains the view that the basic intent of the <br /> <br />Compact negotiators was to maintain the status quo, to <br /> <br />increase usable stateline flows, and to accommodate new <br /> <br />development only to the extent that the Kansas entitlement <br /> <br />could be preserved. <br /> <br />Colorado's first report, entitled "Report to Investi- <br /> <br />gation Committee of the Arkansas River Compact Administra- <br /> <br /> <br />tion,. September 6, 1985, basically concluded that any <br /> <br />,Jj', ,:..,,} <br />" . ~~9Iines in John Martin Reservoir inflows or usable state- <br />.. ._--~. <br />;,...c'- <br />line flows are the result of either of a decline in tribu- <br /> <br />tary inflows or the operation of the conservation pool of <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />" --..to <br />