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
24 <br />1 thank they are pertinent at this time. <br />2 MR. COOLEY: To the discussion of Muddy Creek? <br />3 <br />MR. <br />HOWLAND: <br />Yes, sir. <br />4 <br />MR. <br />COOLEY: <br />Go ahead, please. <br />5 MR. HOWLAND: Our company is presently involved <br />6 in the litigation,- pertaining to the transfer of the remaining <br />7 rights and we wouldn't want you to be misled and think that that <br />8 is going to be an easy job to get that transferred. With that, <br />9 I'believe I'll leave that question as is. <br />10 But the present decree issued to the 5,000 acre- <br />11 <br />feet or <br />a fraction <br />of <br />the flow at <br />the Muddy Creek <br />gage -- we feel <br />12 <br />leaves <br />a little to <br />be <br />desired in <br />its present form <br />and there is <br />( 13 <br />a possibility that that might be attacked. I don't know that <br />14 <br />it will, but our concern is that in the initial negotiations, <br />15 <br />three gages:- were contemplated: The two presently installed <br />16 <br />and about to become operative and one just above the mouth of <br />27 <br />Mule Creek where it enters into John Martin Reservoir. Without <br />18 <br />this third :cage, which Hasn't been built, there is no practical <br />19 <br />way that you can figure the actual transit loss in either stream <br />20 <br />especially for -- Well, you can figure the transit loss to <br />21 <br />the confluence of "Muddy Creek and Rule Creek, however, that's <br />22 <br />a very short distance when compared to the whole distance from <br />23 <br />Muddy Creek Dam to John Martin Reservoir. <br />24 <br />My point is, I guess, that the actual transit <br />f <br />25 <br />loss might become a major factor at times, especially in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.