BOARD01033 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

food situation is nothing like or as good as in the John Martin Dam. As recreational facilities they do not provide a reasonable alternative to the John Martin Dam. I I understand opponents argue that the recreational interests should be willing to share the disaster drought years along with water users. I think the answer to that is that recreational interests are willing and that the 10,000 acre-feet, if provided, does not provide an ideal amount of water; that this is a minimal amount of water. It is suggested that the sharing proposition should be on the other foot - the irrigators should do a little sharing. And I am speaking of sharing in terms of space only and not in terms of sharing any water that is now a part of their decreed priorities. I Opponents of the permanent pool assert the administration of the river in dry years with the permanent pool above John Martin Dam would be difficult if not impossible. Now I think that anYOne who lives on the Arkansas understands that administration of the river is difficult under any normal conditions and for the life of me I cannot see that the maintenance of the permanent pool above the dam would accentuate those difficulties. I think that anyone who has observed diversions along the Arkansas know that these diversions are approximate and with a fluctuating flow, a meandering and sandy bottomed river, that it is impossible to tell the rate of travel; that there is inflow below a point of diver- sion. It just happens that my home for a great many years was just north of the diver- sion point of Amity Canal and I suspect that there are hundreds of times when I have observed an inflow from Mud Creek or Rule Creek or other tributaries that came and passed the intake of the Amity Canal that were never reported to the upstream users. And which the upstream users never had an opportunity to take advantage of the avail- ability of the downstream tributary inflow. ~/G~