Laserfiche WebLink
<br />...';.:.: <br /> <br />o <br />'-:J <br />t..) <br /> <br />( __l <br /> <br />W <br />I->" <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />at the stateline. <br /> <br />Also, the assumption was made that the return flow <br /> <br />and other accretions between the dam and the stateline <br /> <br />are not available for diversion in Colorado and that <br /> <br />they are applied against the required deliveries to <br /> <br />Kansas. When the return flow and other accretions are <br /> <br />not sufficient to provide a minimum amount equal to 40 <br /> <br />percent of the releases at the John Martin Dam, a por- <br /> <br />tion of the releases must be passed by the ditch head- <br /> <br />gates in Colorado and delivered at the state line. <br /> <br />Therefore, the amount of water available for diversion <br /> <br />by Colorado ditches is the amount that is released at <br /> <br />the dam unless the return flow and other accretions are <br /> <br />not equal to a minimum of 40 percent of the releases. <br /> <br />The simulation model, which computes a monthly <br /> <br />water budget, was programed to run on the Colorado <br /> <br />Department of Natural Resources I computer, a NCR Cen- <br /> <br />tury 200. <br /> <br />Inflow to the reservoir included river flow <br /> <br />that was measured at the upstream gaging stations; <br /> <br />unmeasured inflow from small creeks and other sources; <br /> <br />precipitation that fell on the reservoir water surface; <br /> <br />and an optional inflow term, which was used for testing <br />