Laserfiche WebLink
<br />David L. Pope <br />October 6, 2003 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />I would first like to address the computation of transit loss and antecedent flow <br />conditions that you describe in the second paragraph of your letter. The release <br />of Offset Account water was initiated while conservation storage was still being <br />distributed into accounts (April 1 thruApril12, 2002) and Colorado ditches were <br />calling for very little account water. Although the antecedent flow at the state line <br />was approximately 60 cfs at the start of the delivery, the antecedent flow at key <br />locations along the river was significantly lower (gage below JMR was 16 cfs, at <br />Lamarwas 7 cfs, and at Granada was 13 cfs). The Offset Account release <br />represented over 80% of the water released from John Martin Reservoir forthe <br />first four to five days of the run. The procedure for computing the transit loss <br />utilizing the USGS Water Resources Investigations 78-75 (September 1978) <br />[herein after the "Livingston Formula"] is described on pages 17 through 23 of that <br />report and those pages are included as Enclosure 1. Since you did not provide <br />any details on how you computed transit losses of 46%, it is difficult to determine if <br />you followed a procedure consistent with the guidelines in the USGS report. We <br />do not believe that transit losses were 46%. ' <br /> <br />It is important to point out,' however, that a significant portion of the water in the <br />Offset Account at the time, of the delivery represented 'either return flow or return <br />flow transit loss water. This includes not only the:B01;57 acre-feet designated at <br />the 'time of the release, but also the unevaporated portions of the amounts of <br />return flow/return flow transit loss water booked overto the Kansas con~umable <br />subaccount from the return flow/return flow transit loss subaccount on a monthly <br />basis from ,July 2001 (after the last Kansas release) through March of 2002, <br />estimated to be anadditional350 acre-feet. The retumflow transit loss water <br />stored in the Offset Account is the amount estimated to be necessary to deliver <br />the. return flows_to _t~eirhi~t()r.Lc _riy.~r ~~~~tl_~_C!~~<;iu on tb~_bj~t9!lc;JI!Qr1thIY_~f_hedul~__. <br />---------6freturn fiowsan-a is nofintended to be sufficienttodeliver the return flows to the <br />state line under higher transit loss conditions. <br /> <br />We believe our computation of Offset Account release credit is consistent with <br />paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Offset Account Resolution. However, paragraph 3 bf <br />the Stipulation Re Offset Account provides thatthe..states agree to cooperate with <br />each other, the Compact Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey to <br />improve the method of determining transit losses between John Martin Dam and <br />the state line, and we are open to any suggestions you might have for attempting <br />to calibrate the Livingston formula for the reaches below John Martin Dam for the <br />potential range of delivery conditions underwhich Kansas may'choose to release <br />waterfrom the Offset Account. <br /> <br />Although I recognize that the State of Kansas has discretion as to when to <br />. demand delivery of Offset Accountor Section II account water for western Kansas <br />farmers, it seems unfortunate that the result of this decision has been to suffer RECEIVED <br />evaporation losses from the Offset Account since the last Kansas delivery in ~~f}5ept. of Agriculture <br /> <br />-------------:-o-cr-2-nU03 <br /> <br />Garden GityFieldOffice <br />Division of Water Resources <br />