2008-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

storage is fully ...... So from the standpoint of water, generally the use of it is considered to be the conservation of it. And so, if you put your water to beneficial use, whether you're selling it to Irving or using it locally or whatever, you're going to have a greater utilization of the conservation pool. And when you're drawing water down and there's water in flood storage, you're really taking water from the conservation pool, because that's where your pumps are, but what's happening is the top of the water level is coming down, which is what they want to happen anyway. So the only limitation you have is the diversion rights given to you by the state, the cap on how much you can divert. Something I was talking about with your staff today, there is, I think it's 86.5 cubic feet per second, which is a lot of water, but that's the maximum diversion rate that you can have from the project. If you want to take more than that, you're going to have to go in and amend the permit. If you want to take some from another location, you're going to have to go in and amend the permit. So all of these limitations are spelled out in your water rights permit. Reeves Hayter: 86.5 cubic feet per second is not a new number, now. That's not a new limit. That IS 55 million gallons a day. It's the same number, just expressed in different units. JM: OK, Question No. 16, does the contract for water rights between the Corps of Engineers and the City of Paris allow for changes in the lake levels for additional holding capacity. For example raising the dam height, dredging or acquiring additional flood plain for holding more water above the 451 foot elevation? It doesn't address that. It is silent on it. You'd have to negotiate that with the Corps. They'd have to go through and check those boxes and work out the terms to do that. No. 17, If the water rights have not been fully paid by the City of Paris, could another entity buy the unpaid portion from the Corps of engineers and subsequently call the note? JM: My understanding is the city is attempting to pay off its final payment to the Corps of Engineers and so I don't think that's a problem. And even if you weren't in a position to pay it off, I've never heard of a situation of the Corps relinquishing its rights to a third party and let them go foreclose on another. So I don't think in the real world that that's a problem. OK, the last three or four questions have to do with new sources of supply. 18. Who owns the water that exits the lake via the spillway? It's the state's water, subject to the compact. So it's going to require a new appropriation as long as it's in the state of Texas. I suspect when it hits the Red River, there is an issue, because generally the southern boundary of the Red River is the border between Texas and Oklahoma. But this water is handled via the compact, so I don't know for sure. I would suspect that appropriations on the Texas side would get a permit from the State of Texas and on the Oklahoma side would get a permit from the State of Oklahoma. But it's all subject to this compact. You have a minimum flow requirement to meet, and you have each state can get no more than 25 percent of that total water. And I would submit to you, and I don't meet to be harsh or judgmental about this, but there's not a lot of appropriations out of the Red River for municipal use because of the CDS content. And it looked to me from the map that you're probably two or three miles down Sanders Creek from Pat Mayse Lake until you enter the Red River, so the opportunity to pick that water up would be preferable in that limited space if you felt that would be a beneficial thing to do. But then the question is what are you going to do with it? You certainly not going to pipe it back into Pat Mayse because it would flow back over ... Going on to the next one, Question No. 19, at what point does the water exit the lake and become