Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000823 <br /> <br />-5- <br /> <br />2. Nature of Differences I <br /> <br />Notably absent from the discussions and understandinGs between <br /> <br />the two State Engineers are those questions arising from Par. 4 of the <br /> <br />Stipulation of 1933, regarding "surplus" supplies, and from Par. 5 there- <br /> <br />of, ooncerning "upstream exchanges" within ColoradO'S half of the total <br /> <br />surplus. Differences in the figures, covering operations during April <br /> <br />to July and showing the status of interstate relations on August 1. 1943. <br /> <br />are due to different methods of calculation and accounting, which in <br /> <br />turn are attributable to the different interpretations placed on the <br /> <br />said" surplus" provisions of the 1933 Stipulation. <br /> <br />As heroin later more fully explained. there is little if allY <br /> <br /> <br />dispute regardingl (a) the quantities of wuter diverted from the Arkan- <br /> <br />sas River by ditches in Colorado below Caddoa; (b) the quantities of <br /> <br />_ter delivered by Cclorado and received by Kansas at the Stateline; or <br /> <br />(c) the quota that ],ansas was entitled to receive in order to maintain <br /> <br />the status quo of diversion relations betvreen the two Stutes. Principal <br /> <br />differEnces in the two sets of figures result from. (1) differences in <br /> <br />the accounting for those quantities of water delivered by Colorado and <br /> <br />received by Kansas at the Stateline in excess of Lhe Kansas quota or <br /> <br />status quo allOcation (item b above); and (2) differences in the methods <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />of calculating the quantities of vater diverted by ditches in Colorado <br /> <br />upstream from Caddoa in excess of the diversions that would have been <br /> <br />made under 1943 vlater supply conditions in the absence of Caddoa Reser- <br /> <br />voir. <br />