|
<br />---~~\"
<br />
<br />~- -
<br />.. , ~W272'''''' _----~, _C,_MOHLER-.-BECRJ:TlLRY-----
<br />~ DIVISION or WA~E-"-~~~S_~/~\~--_u :?4~,. TOPEKA" KANBAS
<br />~---OEOcSCKNAPP. Chi.! Engin..r ~j? *B 4" ~\ .
<br />SOB N.... Engl.nd Building ;;; ~ "?,... 'if ?J,
<br />, "" ";. n ,,>. N Ila 24 194.3
<br />('~1 ::-- 0"'''' ~ ~ ~ y.
<br />;jIIIIo ~ ~ ~
<br />..-: C1;.A'\ ~
<br />~ ~QZ;._"';' <&>
<br />76' '..,. ~
<br />~<'9Sv~~"
<br />
<br />KANSAS STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE
<br />
<br />~
<br /><l\
<br />~
<br />~
<br />
<br />Mr. M. C. HinderUder,
<br />state Engineer,
<br />Denver, Colorado.
<br />
<br />
<br />Dear Mr. Binderlider:
<br />
<br />I would have replied earlier to your letter of Ilay 17 had it not been
<br />necessary for me to be out of' the office the 'latter part of laBt week.
<br />
<br />b to the figures in the ts.bulation sent with your letter, I rind ray-
<br />Belt: unable to check your item, "Additional upstream diversions in Colorado
<br />6,848", for the period May 1 to 12, 1943. I have not attempted yet to check
<br />5IJ.y of the other fi.gures. ,- - .
<br />
<br />t
<br />
<br />In calculating diverllions above CaddoaReservoir in excess of the
<br />"status quo" of priorities, I have assumedtbat it: the Keesee was diverting itsu
<br />priority dated prior to 1884, the :Ft. Bent its priority of ~886, the Lamar its
<br />priorities d01lIl to and including that of November 1886, and the Amity its pti-
<br />ority of Feb. 21, 1.887, then 4l2.61 c.f.s. must be cOllling into District 67 (the
<br />location of the Caddoa Reservoir) to satisfy these decrees before prioriti.ell
<br />above with dates subsequent to Feb. 21, 1.887, should be allowed to divert water.
<br />From Ilay 1 to 12, inclusive, the ditches in Districts 14 and 17 apparently di-
<br />verted 15,218 acre feet of water under priorities subsequent to Feb. 21, 1887,
<br />while the flow into the river never was suf!'icient to meet the Amity's priority
<br />of the above date. Tbe result is that the Kessee, Ft. Bent, Lemar and Amity
<br />received /DOst of their water from the reservoir in exchange for the increased or
<br />out-of-priority diversions above. Tbe net amount of water diverted by such
<br />process of exchange appears to be ~3,195 acre feet as set forth in detail in the
<br />tabulation attached to this letter; -
<br />
<br />My purpose in 1IritiIlg you at this time is to point out that under the
<br />provisions 01' the Caddoa Dam stipulation "all exchanges of water between the
<br />Colorsdo Ditches whose beadgates are below said reservoir and those whose bead-
<br />gates are above said reservoir shall be con!'ined and limited to, and supplied
<br />from Colorado's portion 01' the surplus waters stored in such reservoir", also
<br />that such surplus "shall be allocated one-half to Colorado end one-half to Kansas".
<br />
<br />I doubt the propriety of assuming that there will be a surplus, .and pro-
<br />ceeding to permit the exchange of reservoir _ter for increased diverSions above
<br />when the water officials of the two states have not determined or "mutually agreed
<br />upon" the amount of the sUrplus, if' any. Apparently, for the f'irst ~ days of' &;y .
<br />Colorado's upstream diversions out of the surplus account alllounted to a UtUe
<br />better than 1,000 acre feet a day. While the :Ft. Lyon and ot.lte_rs_-above-were-closed---
<br />down, as you directed whenw!" were at Lamar, -andtheuiii-flow into the reservoir
<br />roseprolllptly,-yet tl1e Arkansas Valley Daily River and Ditch Report shows that the
<br />
<br />n. DJ...i.ioZl of W.t.,. R..o_e.. 0..1. with Irriqation. Drainage, Flood ContTol and R.I.t_d
<br />
<br />...._."~__.< ''-. "'___,_...d'~" n_.' ..,....._,._ .r .,.. ......... '!':'~_. ~___ ,., 'V___,.
<br />
|