Laserfiche WebLink
...we outlined the concern... <br />Article IV D <br />Arkansas River Compact <br />CRS 37 -69 -101 <br />• This compact is not intended to prevent <br />development of the Arkansas river in <br />Colorado, which may involve improved <br />or prolonged functioning of existing <br />works: Provided, the waters of the river <br />shall not be depleted in usable quantity <br />or availability to the water users in <br />Colorado and Kansas... <br />In the Beginning <br />50 %75 <br />C.U. ; <br />Ditch =150 cfe Rd Flow <br />River =150 cfs ,50 -A-75 <br />0 cfe <br />"'17 <br />I� <br />With Improved Efficiency Only <br />75% =112.5 <br />C. U. <br />Ditch= 150ofs ` Rd—flaw <br />River = 150 cf. x,25% =37.5 <br />0 of <br />1+703 118.75 <br />... clarified the real issue... <br />Is the State really opposed to <br />improving irrigation efficiencies <br />in the Arkansas basin? <br />With Improved Efficiency and <br />Bypass <br />75%=75 <br />C. U. <br />NoL.provided that return flow is maintained. I River= 150 ofs <br />Ditch =100 ofs <br />Relurn flow <br />50 ofs <br />37.5 <br />2 <br />