Laserfiche WebLink
17 <br /> v <br /> O <br /> v <br /> MR. INAPP; Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, in presenting <br /> the Commission' s views on Item No. 2, and since certain <br /> points were brought up in the letter of General Wheeler of <br /> O <br /> September 16, 1948, setting up certain reasons for which they <br /> are considering a change in what they have assumed to be the <br /> allocated capacity , I wish to handle this matter under these <br /> general points: (1) the capacity of the Arkansas River <br /> channel; (2) changes that may have taken place in the channel; <br /> (3) the matter of Congressional authorisation in so far as it <br /> might amount to allocation of capacity between flood control <br /> and irrigation; and then especially to discuss the studies <br /> which have been made by the Engineering Committee of this <br /> Commission, and to point out the great difficulty of this <br /> Commission utilising Caddoa Reservoir in compact negotiations <br /> unless there is a definitely allotted portion of the reservoir <br /> to irrigation that would not be subject to change. <br /> Now, as I read General Wheeler's letter and other material, <br /> the question comes before the Commission at this time on two <br /> points, that the capacity of the Arkansas River channel at <br /> the time of the authorisation of the project was 10,000 cubic <br /> feet per second, and that the channel has deteriorated until <br /> it has at this time a capacity of 6000 cubic feet per second. <br /> I took occasion to study House Document 308, Seventy- <br /> fourth Congress, first session, and I find on page b7 that <br />