My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00461
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00461
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:26:09 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:46:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8126.300
Description
Arkansas River Coordinating Committee - Correspondence
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
10/1/1994
Author
Frank Milenski
Title
Report to Committee
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
<br />,\ <br />',/ f. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />F~ll_ <br />. <br /> <br />'F- L h: \.Q... de..: <br />\01"1'-\ <br /> <br />REPORT TO COMMITTEE <br /> <br />First, the Committee has to admit that increased use of water <br />in Colorado has created problems. There has to be a reduction in <br />the economy in the Arkansas Valley. <br /> <br />Second, Colorado wants more water for recreation (Great <br />Plains) with 20% efficiency and 80% loss. <br /> <br />colorado wants water to protect the pumps. <br /> <br />Third, more water is required for the losses Kansas has <br />required to keep the Compact whole. <br /> <br />I may be old fashioned, but you can't have things both ways. <br /> <br />If Colorado pumpers are required to make complete augmentation <br />which will have to be done to protect the Priority System in <br />Colorado, there has to be reduction in use of water in Colorado. <br /> <br />As the augmentation of water in Colorado comes into place the <br />so-called transmountain return flows will be taken from the river. <br />Seems as these flows have masked the actual losses that could have <br />occurred to the state of Kansas. <br /> <br />With the withdrawal of these return flows used for <br />augmentation by the cities in the Arkansas Valley and the Fountain <br />Valley, the burden will increase to keep compact whole. <br /> <br />With Colorado setting the use of well consumption at 75% in <br />the court in California or the Master using the 75% figure, we got <br />problems. <br /> <br />With 23 years of the river flows at Pueblo below the average <br />of 450,887 AF for 42 years and 1957 at 984,470 AF, 1965 at 738,900 <br />AF, 1984 at 923,770 AF, 1983 at 679,800 AF, 1987 at 730,200 AF, <br />averages look backwards. <br /> <br />colorado use of ground water is and has created problems, at <br />whose expense should the solution come from? <br /> <br />It is my opinion water is legally diverted on a daily basis. <br />There cannot be averages without grave harm to senior decreed water <br />rights in dry years. <br /> <br />The thing the Master has said the use of ground water has in <br />his findings violated Article IV of the Compact. <br /> <br />The one thing that is very apparent is from the lawsuit there <br />ain't anybody smart enough to predict what will happen for the next <br />50 years. I banked with H. B. Mendenhall from 1928 till his death <br />in the sixties. Those men were the most knowledgeable of the time. <br />They could not foresee the development of huge pumping at the time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.