Laserfiche WebLink
<br />01'30 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Under the proposed change in water use, the Divison's water would be <br /> <br />diverted at the Catlin headgate and carried through the canal system, <br /> <br />This water would then be spilled into one of two tributaries to the <br /> <br />Arkansas River at the lower end of the canal system. The water then <br /> <br />travels about 35 miles (56 km) down the Arkansas River to John Martin <br /> <br />Reservoir. Under Colorado law, a natural stream can be used to convey <br /> <br />water for reservoir owners, but natural losses must be accounted for <br /> <br />(Radosevich and Hamburg, 1971). The Colorado State [ngineer charges <br /> <br />0.07 percent per mile loss for the Arkansas River. A charge of 2.5 <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />percent is made against the water still assigned to the Division for <br /> <br />this loss, The water charged for river loss remains in the river and the <br /> <br />water still assigned to the Division of Wildlife is stored in John Martin <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />Reservoir. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />The Catlin Canal imports water from outside of the area. Imported <br /> <br />~ater is not subject to the priority system and is not counted against <br /> <br />the canal's demand by the model. <br /> <br />In the simulation, the Division of <br />....--- - - -- -" - - - .. <br /> <br />Wildlife did not claim its 11.24 percent of the Catlin's impo~ted-water. <br />---- <br /> <br />The Catlin Canal was not allowed to increase its demand for water <br /> <br />because of the change in use of part of the water, nor were well owners <br /> <br />under the canal allowed to pump water to make up the shares that were <br /> <br />sold to the Division of Wildlife. <br /> <br />.'. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />- <br />