Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000844 <br /> <br />-26- <br /> <br />10. The Knapp Plan (Cont'd) <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />deliveries. they should be credited. on days such as above menticned, <br /> <br />with over-deliveries calculated by the sarna formula. But the Knapp Plan <br />fails to recognize sueh over-deliveries when they occur, and thus the <br /> <br />oalculated ch~rges against Colorado are unduly increased. <br /> <br />Similar one-way calculations are made in the Knapp Plan in con- <br />neotion with upstre8lll diversions. All over-diversions (termed exoess or <br />out-of-priority) of upstream ditches are considered, 'Wlile all under- <br />diversions of other upstream ditches on the same day are ignored. This <br />one-way procedure applies to all departures, whether major or minor in <br />extent. llinor departures from exaot decreed amoWlts are unavoidable, <br />and are so recognized in Colorado by rival claimants. SUch minor over- <br />diversions of some upstream ditches as occurred in 1943, for which the <br />Knapp Plan c her ges Colorado and claims or edi t in behalf of Caddoa Reser- <br />voir for Kansas, have occurred, as shown by the diversion records of <br /> <br />previous seasons, before Caddoa Reservoir came into operatiQn. Since <br /> <br />they are not properly attributable to operations of the reservoir, t:hey <br />are not properly char gable against Colorado. These over-ohe,rges in the <br />Knapp figures should be entirely elimin!\ted by Eiving consideration to <br />similarly minor underdiversions of other upstream ditches on the same <br />day, or, since the claims of downstream ditches are treated as one Sroup, <br /> <br /> <br />the diversions of all upstream ditohes should simi lal'ly be treated as <br /> <br /> <br />another group, a"d not by individual di tohes, considering Bome and ignor- <br /> <br /> <br />ing others, as in the Knapp Plan. <br /> <br /> <br />With respeot to major departures in the diversions of upstream <br />