|
<br />r.
<br />~
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />'-- '
<br />
<br />,e
<br />
<br />,,-
<br />
<br />1"':".)
<br />,-,
<br />
<br />-5-
<br />
<br />~ .-- -------.--. -----""' ------------------ ----
<br />..;..
<br />~ion require, and may be accomplished only by the storage of water in the ir-
<br />~igation pool, - water conservation by the storage of streamflows heretofore
<br />unused and wasted, to make thsm water supplies available for additional'di-
<br />version and increased use in the two States; and streamflow regulation by the
<br />storage of streBmrlows heretofore appropriated, diverted and used, to make
<br />them available when and as needed by lands and crops, ratr~r than whsn they
<br />ooourred under pre-Caddoa conditions. '
<br />
<br />11. With respect to the plan of reservoir operation ass~ed by Kansas,
<br />and the treatment thereunder of "Caddoa flows heretcfore used in Colorado"
<br />as unavailable for storage, Colorado's position is that, ~hile such appro-
<br />priated streamflows may not be available for storage in the sense that they
<br />may be withheld from present Colorado o"mers and users, or be divided with
<br />or allocated'to others by this Commission or any proposed oompact, they are
<br />streamflo,~ physioally available for storage which could be stored for pur-
<br />posss of regulation, and for release from the ressrvoir to present Colorado'
<br />o~ners and users 'in aocordance with their established rights; and that any
<br />assumed or adopted plan for the operation of the irrigation pool in Caddoa
<br />reservoir must contemplate and provide for the regulation of "Caddoa flo~~
<br />heretofore used in Colorado."
<br />
<br />12. Again with respect to the plan of reservoir operation assumed by
<br />Kansas, and the treatment thereunder of "Caddoa flows heretofore used in
<br />Kansas" as available for storage, Colorado IS position is that Caddoa flows
<br />heretofore used d~nlstream in both States should be treated ,as available for
<br />etorage for purposes of regullltion. but should not be oonsidered, "new water".
<br />to become available for additional diversion and increased use by reaSOn of
<br />Caddoa reservoir operations; and that in the document under discussion, and
<br />in the tabulations descrihed as "tending to show the amount of new "later,"
<br />the reported "amounts of usable water" should be diminished by deducting
<br />therefrom the amounts of "Caddoa flows heretofore used in Kansas."
<br />
<br />I;. Since total flmy at Caddoa averaged 295,700 acre feet annually,
<br />and since 190,000 acre feet thereof ere ccnsidered "available fcr storage"
<br />by'Kansas, it follo~~ that the remaining 105,700 acre fest were considered
<br />unavailable for storage, From the method by which Kansas oalculated the
<br />190,000 acre feet considered "available for storage," the remaining 105,700
<br />aere feet appear to rspresent the "depletions" incident to diversions by
<br />ditohes do~~stream in Colorado, - which for all ditohes in Water District 67
<br />averaged 158,900 aore feet annually. Inherent in ths Kansas prooedure are
<br />ass~~ptions that Colorado District 67 ditohes diverted 53,200 acre feet fram
<br />sources entering the river below Caddoa, and 105,700 acre feet from the river
<br />passing Caddoa. Inasmuch as return flows to the river are small in that sec-
<br />tion be~leen Caddoa and Lamar, where diversions total 132,400 aore feet an-
<br />nually, but are relatively la1'"ge in the loweI' reaohes of the Uunar-Stateline
<br />section, below the headgates of all major and most of the minor ditches in
<br />WateI' Distriot 67, the validity and aocuracy of the, assumptions inherent in .
<br />the Kansas reethod of oalc~lation are questionable.
<br />
<br />14. As shawn by the submitted tabulation, the 190,000 acre feet annual-
<br />ly of Caddoa flow, oonsidered by Kansas as "~ter available for stoI'age," is
<br />
|