Laserfiche WebLink
<br />J <br /> <br />. <br />--} . "j <br /> <br />~~-;- <br /> <br />,'-"-:1 <br /> <br />T\:I <br />CJl <br />CJl <br />-.,j <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />8~ <br />:'~\j, <br /> <br />.,-'i~-- <br /> <br />KANSAS STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTQRE <br />;;SIQ78910 <br />f'1..,"J ~ J7-;::J <br />" JUN 79 .~"~ <br />~ REC <:3 ~ <br />~R, Sf",/, fllltD ~ <br /> <br />cD l'1'1J& :---... <br />~ OFCO 'V/'/'II ~I <br />\'Ic-:\ '-0 '('-.0-' <br />, G...> . ~f <br /> <br />":~TQfflng,~"C' <br /> <br />DlV1810N OF VI A TER RESOURCES <br />GED. S. KNA!:,P. Chief Engineer <br />S06 New England Building <br /> <br />c1. C. MOHLER. SECRETARY <br />TOPEKA KANSAS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />June B, 19';3 <br /> <br />Mr. 14. C. Hinderlider, <br />State Engineer, <br />Denver, 2, Colorado. <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Hinderlider: <br /> <br />After comparing the calculations and material sent with your letter of June 2 <br />with those which I sent you on June 5, it appears that you and I are not very far <br />apart as to Stat611ne deliveries, diversions b,r Colorado Ditches below Caddoa Dam <br />and out of priority diversions ebove Gaddoa for the month of May. The principal <br />difference between us is the calculati.on~of the amount of water exchanged between <br />the upper and lower ditches in Colorado. In the calculBtion of that, I have <br />assumed that the amolUlt of water exchanged was the difference between the amoUnt <br />of the out of priority diversions above and the amount which was entering District <br />67 (the Caddoa Reservoir) needed to satisfy priorities or Feb. 2l, 1887 or earlier. <br />1.Ir. Patterson, in his melllorandum dated May 28, seems to follow this same procedure <br />because he finds that when the upstream junior is passing sufficient water to sat- <br />isfy the downstrsam senior claims, then the upstream junior may properly divert <br />from the additional. supply. I agree. <br /> <br />I cannot follow your theory . that) predicated upon the conclusion that if 380 s.f. <br />were required to meet the demands of senior priorities below the reservoir, the <br />total amount of upstream diversions each day by junior appropriators should be re- <br />duced b.1 380 s.f. to arrive at the amount of the excess upstream diversions. That <br />takes no account of the amolUlt of water that was actually passing into District 67 <br />daily to meet senior priorities. If we are unable to get together on that point, <br />I tbirik we can very well work it out when we meet with Parker to go over the matter <br />of ~ocation of gaging stations in the Republican P.i.ver Basin. <br /> <br />As to Caddoa Reservoir, we are leaving the entire matter of the storage and <br />release of water to Colorado, and the amount Colorado holds in the reservoir to <br />meet its obligations to Kansas is probably no concern of ours as long as Coloredo <br />meets its obligations. In other words, it makes no dirference to us when Colorado <br />delivers water at the State Line whether the water comes from tribut~ inflow <br />below, from water which Colorado has accumulated in the reservoir or from water <br />which it may require water users to pass dOlill from above. <br /> <br />I IlJn now having cal<ml.ations from Arkansas Daily Ditch Reports made for the <br />month of May and when they are finished, I will send you our tabulations as a <br />check against yours. <br /> <br />GSK: ch <br /> <br />Very truly your". ___~___ <br />~-~--~~ i'--~ ~ ~ <br />- t.r;:-[ ". /-Yr\ -"0~. .. <br />G90. S. Xnapp, . . <br />Chief Engineer ' /~ <br />