My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Arkansas River Compact Administration and U.S. Geological Survey Sate of Colorado Meeting May 11 1978
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Arkansas River Compact Administration and U.S. Geological Survey Sate of Colorado Meeting May 11 1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2012 3:42:50 PM
Creation date
7/27/2012 1:51:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Arkansas River Compact Administration and U.S. Geological Survey Sate of Colorado Meeting May 11 1978
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Date
5/11/1978
Author
Newton, Patricia
Title
Arkansas River Compact Administration and U.S. Geological Survey Sate of Colorado Meeting May 11 1978
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1 forgive the interruption. <br />2 MR. JESSE: Certainly, <br />3 Not any time, to make -- for any reason, why, <br />4 try to make it as clear as I can. <br />5 The decree is a little complicated, but it <br />6 required construction of two gaging stations: one of them below <br />7 the breached dam and one of them below the confluence of Rule <br />g Creek and Muddy Creek. The paved road is below the confluence <br />9 and the one you can see the dam from the other one. <br />10 :Water: can store in priority, according to the <br />11 decree, 51000 over 13,425, or approximately 37 percent of the <br />12 flow in Muddy Creek, less transit losses which basically are <br />13 30 percent. There's another condition on the transit losses <br />14 that could make it higher, but as I read the decree, it could <br />15 not be less than 30 percent. <br />16 I looked up an example. If, for example, the <br />17 flow of Muddy Creek was 100 second -feet and the flow in Rule <br />18 Creek at least 70 second -feet, then John Martin could store <br />19 37 percent of 100 less 30 percent which would come out to 25.9 <br />20 cfs, assuming a 100 second -feet flow. <br />21 The water would be considered natural flow, it <br />22 would be considered the property of the Wildlife. It would be <br />23 accounted for in the same way we'd account for any other resery <br />24 1 The deduction and operation would be computed. <br />c <br />25 The water right itself would depend upon the two <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.