WSP10791 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,., 'o~r9 9 " ",,!,' p" -,!r 7. Differenoes: in analytioml results~ as indicated in the above table. are substantial in arrLount as, illustrated by differences of 37,'jOO Ai'at Stateline. and 53.100 Ai' at Garden City. in the amounts of river flew; from' Caddo... passing those stations. Suoh differenoeEraise questions, ccncerning the acceptability of either analyses. and regarding the assuranoe cf accuracy to attaoh to any suoh analyses. . COIIIIIonly .i t would.. be expected that . later' . or second analyses were intencle,<l,to oorreotand,refine,\,:\;l.1.El,results . and pro- oedures of prev1ousorfirstana~yses.'llU1; ;1~:;~hiis'.lJ3.8tanoe . the results! are not oomparable .nQr~sone useW111i1mproviJJg the other. in as muohas1;ll8'Purposea.'and objec,tivesoffir'stana'lysu'were ignored in seoondanalyses. .anclthe two analytical methods _re based on different conoept~ of.so-oalled aocretion water and upon. different theories of segregation. G" ObjeotiveE of first analyses were to estimate. from reservoir operatiol1ll' studies. the amoun1;s ef river flewiat Caddo~1;e ,'beconsery-ed for 'addi tional~tiSe',1:Iy' John ,MBrtil!li Reservoir" ThilFrequire'4r'lIs1;1.1iii'thig'" ". how' muoho1: the Caddoll !:low; is; obligated to maintain historio diversions downstre8lll. 'which in turn required estimationeo 01: usable water- .supplies enteriug the river 11elow Caddoa, or the quantities. that might be diverted with river flows at Caddo.. intercepted by Jchn Martin Reservoir. ..These estimaticns were made. based on caloulations of net river gaineLamar to State line (Table 23) and net accretion effectSl (Table 24), on cl&8s11'i- cations. of both into oategories defined as usable water supplies; (Tables: 23..t. 24Jl. and 30) and unusable streamf'lows (Table 23B), am on the assumption. in connection with Table23.1;hat with CaddO&:. fIClWSl,,, intercepte'..bY'storage.. aU inflows; ,to theriver,beilween CllddClll'iu,ut ,"'.' Lemar _uld'be ;divertedbyditches: of that river section.iUidheIloe' , (with ncne passing Lemar) aU inflows to the river beloW' Caddolll that reached the State line would be those entering belOW' lamar that were not diverted by ditches; in COlorado. and woulll therefcre be measured by the net river' gains; from Lamar tc State line (Table 23). '. . 9. Objectives; cf second analyses,. as stated by the sub-committee, "were to determine from' available record... whore the water came frClll' and. in what quantities. and'! what happened to that water in the ocurse of its flcw> from' Caddoa. Colcrado tc Garden City. Kansas". The sub-committee recommended tha~ its determination... of aocretion valueSl be accepted and utilized in future reservoir cperations studies. but this. recommendaticn was not adopted by the Engineering Committee. Thus the results of second analyses; are merely those which.the sub-committee caloulated. under the conditions: and relations that. prevailed during the historic 1908-1942' period, and are nct those which might have prevailed with John Marti., Reservoir on the river. No attempt was made in seoon~ analyses to estimate how muoh of the caloulated inflcws below Caddoa were usable. or could be diverte~ with river flows; intercepte~ at Caddoa. and henoe the result... cf seoond'analyses. are not applicable in determining howmuoh Caddoa 1:1cw is required to maintain historic diversions downstream, ncr how much Caddllltl flll'" might; be conserved by John Martin Reservoir. -? .. ~. ; -~ . ,,' ; , 1:<' , ',"- ,^"" . " . ~_.._, '-'..";._-~..~ c,:.-"-'.' J~;~",' lk.