Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'.', .... <br />:::,:.~. <br /> <br />..,'.:'< <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />;'. <br /> <br />002276 <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Q. How much of the state line flow from Colorado into Kansas is con- <br /> <br />sidered in the so-called Patterson plan? <br /> <br />A. The hi storically reoorded State line flow has been se",egated in- <br /> <br />to usable and unusable portions. and, under the Patterson plan, the usable <br /> <br />state line flows alone are oonsidered. <br /> <br />As indicated by the attached Table 1, the total Stateline flow <br /> <br />entering Kansas,. inc luding floods,,; averaged 278.600 AJ! annually during the <br /> <br />pre-Oaddoa period 1908-1942. Ho.....ver. the Supreme Court held that. "oalcula- <br /> <br />tions of average annual now. which include flood flows" are, therefore, not <br /> <br />helpful in ascertaining the dependable supply of water usable for irrigation." <br /> <br />.speaking generally, all of the said total state line flow was imusable in Colo- <br /> <br />rado, although a part thereOf was usable and used in Kansas. Based on the <br /> <br />definitions of divertible flows and usable supplies of the Patterson plan, <br /> <br />106,200 AP. or 38% of the total Stateline flow. V<9.S usable in Kansas., and <br /> <br /> <br />172.400 AP'. or 62% of the total" was unusable. in the average y~ar of the pre- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Oe.ddoa period. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Q. Does the Patterson plan attempt to allocate the imusable sup- <br /> <br />plies of the Arkansas River between the two States? <br /> <br />A. No, the ,Patterson plan deals only with usable water, the meas- <br /> <br />ures of which are',' in Kansas, the usable Stateline flows, and in ColoradO, <br /> <br />the diversions from the Arkansas River. exclusive of supplies imported from <br /> <br />other stream systems, of all irrigating ditches in Water Districts 14. 17 and <br /> <br />67. <br /> <br />In this regard. it should be recalled that, as held by the Su- <br /> <br />preme Court opinion, the usable supply of wa~lIr in Colorado has been "sup. <br /> <br />plemented by the extensive use of reservoirs for storage of flood waters and <br /> <br />winter flows not usable or needed for irrigation." and that Caddoa reservoir, <br /> <br />(2) <br />