Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-. <br />t\ <br /> <br />~--- <br />---- <br /> <br />-~------- <br /> <br />~--~ <br /> <br />---- <br />---- <br /> <br />tIEl'lO, <br /> <br />tlay 28, 1943 <br /> <br />Fon <br /> <br />~. C. Hinderlider, State Engineer; <br /> <br />From. <br /> <br />C. 1.. Pe.tterson, Chief En5ine~r, <br />Colorado Water Conservation lJoard; <br /> <br />Re: <br /> <br />Gea. S. Knapp's letter of !'lay 24, 194;>. <br /> <br />t~. Knapp states that if Colorado diverts large amounts of water <br />out of "anticipated surplus," Kansas will expect that like amounts will <br />be held in Caddoa reservoir a~nd delivered to Km1sas as requested. As we <br />understand your administrative pror;rmn, that is the proposed plan being <br />and to be followed this season. Among; others there are two questions to <br />which you o.nd tir. Knapp miCht soon direct your &.ttention. One involws <br />I the accounting for over-deliveries to Kansas during April and thus far in <br />Nay, Vlhi ch was not mentioned in his letter. The other relates to Il plan .- <br />j. or formula for determiniuE the additional di versio::s upstre31l( frcm Caddoa, <br />or diversions out of anticipated surplus, which matt~r justifies.prompt. <br />I attention, as indicated. by the widely differir:~ results obtained by tir. <br />Knapp as compared with tentative fiQJreo compiled in Colorado. <br /> <br />t' <br /> <br />As shov", by the table attached to Hr. Knapp's letter, he calculates <br />the amoUL~ts of water diverted by ditches upstream from Caddoa under prior- <br />ities junior to the .Amity priority of February 21, 1887, finding; 7.672.. 7. 9fxY- <br />secand-feet during May 1-12; aGainst which he credits the stre~~ flows, <br />Arkanse.s Hi ver at Las Ani!:IB.s end Purr::atoire P.i ver at rlOuth, totalling 1,020 <br />day-second-feet; and the difference 6652.7 of day-second-feet ( or 13,195 <br />acre-feet), which at '2 i.F per DA SF eq'~als 13,305 A. F., is termed -cy tir. <br />Knapp "Colorado's ups-:ree.r.: diversi o:r..s out cf tr.e surplus account. n The <br />Knapp figures are sumoarized irr t~e attacned Taole 1. <br /> <br />The Knapp fi~ures e.~e :.;e.sed en. tl:e s~:'ea=:. flows e.t las .A...l1i.mas.. <br />~~erea5 our calcula~ions ha~e Oee~ ca~ed on the La Junta station. While <br />differences in daily valDes ~A7 ~es~l~ f~0n tht ti~ in~erv~l. on the aver- <br />age tne two s~aticn records should give subst~~tially ~qual results. Again <br />the L~app figures i&nore the effects of return flo\~ whereas our calcula- <br />tions have taken the ne~ gains into a~count. This accounts for sone~ but <br />for only a s~~ll part cf the total differcuce in results_ <br /> <br />Principally, the difference is attributable to this factor. l-ir. <br />Knapp assumes that the Arr.ity and senior priorities at Lamar, totalling 413 <br />cfs., are unlimited in their aoili"y to call vster avay from upstream jun- <br />iors. He assumes that all diversions made under upstream junior prior- <br />,..Oles should be chart;ed against Colorado and credi ted to Kansas, as though <br />the existence of a supply of water at Caddoa sufficient to satisfy the <br />downstream senior ~riorities should be credited with having made possibl~ <br />the full !lJnount of such upstream junicr. divet"sicns.- . Our.calculatrons, on <br />