|
<br /> Q -2-
<br />C.- (-.)
<br />-.... _ -----.- - -- - -- - ..---- --. .-- - -- ---- - -- --- -- . -------
<br />..::.. 4
<br /> '.n Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study
<br /> 0
<br /> I~ater Available for Storage" 190.000 190.000 190,000 190,000
<br /> "Demand on Reservoir", (a)
<br /> Peroents of Colo. Dive rsi ons 21% 15% .. 20% 30%
<br /> "Net Evaporation Losses"
<br /> Conservation Pool 17,000 11,000 12,000 6,000
<br /> Flood Pool . ,. 3,000 3,000 .--2,000 2,000
<br /> "Flood Pool Spills" 49,000 49,000 39,000 29.000
<br /> "Amounts of Usable Watsr" (b)
<br /> / Annually 121,000 121,000 137,000 153.000
<br /> Surr.!ner Seasons 121,000 86,000 ' 98,000 107,000
<br /> Winter Seasons 0 35.000 39,000 46,000
<br />
<br />Not~sl (a) So-called "demand on reservoir," or the assumed releases
<br />fram storage, are the peroents shown of the oombinsd di-,
<br />versions from Arkansas River (exolusive of i~ported wa-
<br />ters) of all irrigation ditches in Colcrado Water Dis-
<br />tricts 14 and 17, above Caddoa, and Water District 67,
<br />below Caddoa, - said assumed peroents being applioable
<br />in sumner months only in Study 1. and year-round in
<br />Studies 2, 3 and 4.
<br />
<br />c-
<br />
<br />(b) So-called "eJllom ts of usable water" were oalculated by
<br />subtracting evaporation losses and flood pool spills
<br />from so-oallsd "water available for storage."
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />4. Jimle tlie!l:ansas caf6lili€-fiinprooeduri:may "be-folloViea;-the --re'sults "
<br />""are unosf€iii.ii~-and the dc;cument---'l-saHfictrUi ,to disouss. for"1he r:.easOlis-~--:,';.;~~J
<br />:;~.oEi'...~~!1!.~,,~1i.~~!f(:[df:'~nl.Fms ,are. not-~~rin~--;:-b;sio.re~o~~s. and .()the.z:,}
<br />','data us ed in the calculat~ons are not ~noluded' inJ;he document. nor are the :/
<br />_.-., ..-. . .__._.._-...--~ ~.- _ . ,- -. "_. ./.....1
<br />,'souroes"of- information, disolosed; ,~'"ThB tahulations were submitted without ..-
<br />._-~ . .__,._. ..........-.-.... - - ._- -. '-0","- .. .
<br />explanation as to the methods 'assumed for segregating strearnflows as between
<br />those previously appropriated, diverted and used, and those heretofore unused
<br />and wasted, or as to the plans assumed for river end reservoir operation to
<br />govsrn the storage and rele3.se of water in and from the reservoir and itsdi-
<br />version and use from the river.
<br />
<br />;...
<br />
<br />5. With respect to sources of information Colorado might assume, from
<br />the procedure followed, that s~.e of the records and basic data used by
<br />Kansas were previously compiled by Colorado; that streamflow reoords used
<br />had been prepared by Colorado and introduoed as exhibits in the case 'of Colo-
<br />rado v. Kansas/ that the rates of evaporation llnd siltation at Caddoa Rsser-
<br />voir used by Kansas were based on estL:letes made by Colorado in connection
<br />with its so-called "Operations Plan F," whioh plan of reservoir and river
<br />,operation was based on the provisions of that agreement entered in 1933 be-
<br />tween the officials and attorneys of,thetwo.States. conoerning the.construc-
<br />tion and operation of the Caddoa, project~ known as the "Stipulation of 1933/"
<br />
<br />'--' '
<br />
|