WSP06549

• File Number: 8111.600
• Description: ARCA Annual Reports
• Basin: Arkansas
• Date: 1/1/1985
• Author: ARCA
• Title: Thirty-Seventh Annual Report Arkansas River Compact Administration for the Year 1985
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

i::

is a consensual program which all the affected entities have determined
is to their advantage.
Mr. Pope stated that the essence of his concern was that he wanted to
know what is in place or will be in place to satisfy Colorado or Kansas
interests that are not party to the potential agreement that the program
does not have detrimental effects on other users. Mr. Pratt responded
that the water court will review the question of injury and will look to the
objectors in the case to raise such concerns. He noted that some entities
have already indicated that they have certain problems with the
proposed decree.
Mr. Pope then made the following statement for the record:
I think the members of the Administration and others are aware of
Kansas' concerns regarding the Administration's approval of the
Pueblo winter storage program. I think there is considerable
difference between knowing that it is on-going and being furnished
with copies of various materials, as compared to actually formally
reviewing it. So I would simply state for the record that we continue
our previously stated position as to the malter and would like to, at
this time, formally object for the record to this program proceeding
without operating principles for the Pueblo winter storage
program. whether voluntary or as a permanent decree, being
submitted for review by the Arkansas River Compact
Administration as per the intent of the 1951 resolution of this body.
After further discussion, Mr. Pope indicated that rather than just
stating the objections of Kansas, he would like to make a motion. He then
moved that:
The Administration request that the Southeast Colorado Water
Conservancy District and other parties to the proposed decree for a
Pueblo winter storage program in Colorado Water Division 2
submit an oper&tions plan and other pertinent engineering and
hydrologic data to support such a plan to the Administration for
review and approval by the Administration pursuant to the
Administration's 1951 resolution.
Mr. Bentrup seconded the motion. Mr. McDonald responded that he
wanted the record to reflect that Colorado had no objections to the
Administration discussing, reviewing, and commenting on any such plan
or anything similar to it But, he stated that it is Colorado's position that
the Administration does not have the authority to require prior approval
of such plans or prevent their implementation if the Administration does
not agree with a plan. Mr. Cooley then called for a vote on Mr. Pope's
motion. Colorado voted no and Kansas yes, whereupon the motion was
declared lost
The next agenda item was Mr. Wayne Schroeder's request on behalf of
the Ft Lyon Canal Company for 80,000 aJ. storage space in John Martin
Reservoir. Mr. Cooley stated that discussion on this matter would be
deferred since the request had just been received the day before.
Mr. McDonald then asked that the Administration turn its attention to
the fact that the reservoir system was currently very full. He noted that
that might result in spills at the upstream reservoirs, which in turn might
result in a spill at John Martin Reservoir in the spring of 1985. Since the
1980 Operating Plan was unclear with respect to the sequence of spills,
Mr. McDonald said he thought that it would be desirable to amend the

,
1.-
F=

45

,_.