Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2?-'1.'3 <br /> <br />9. Headgate Irrigation Requirement. - When a computed headgate irriga- <br />tion requirement was used for analysis it was based on the Lowry-Johnson (Lowry <br />and Johnson - April 1941. Consumptive Use of Water for Agriculture, Proc. <br />A.S.C.E. (pp. 595-616)) method for crop consumptive use. Also, a farm loss <br />of 30 percent of farm delivery and a transportation loss of 30 percent of the <br />headgate irrigation requirement was assumed. This was the same as that used <br />in the 1961 Study. <br /> <br />IV. EVALUATION OF PROJECT OPERATION <br /> <br />During the first few months of the review of the operating principles, <br />di scuss ions were he 1 d wi th the States of Kansas and Colorado to i dent ify the <br />issues that needed investigation. From these discussions, the initial thrust of <br />the study focused on the following topics: <br /> <br />1. Is the transfer of water stored under the Model right to the joint use pool <br />at the end of the i rri gat i on season cons i stent wi th the operat i ng pri nci p 1 es <br />and, if not, \/hat effect does it have on downstream water users? <br /> <br />2. Is the storage of water during the nonirrigation season under the priorities <br />of the direct flow rights of the prOject ditches consistent with the operating <br />principles and, if not, what effect does it have on downstream water u.ers? <br /> <br />3. Was the temporary storage of inflow below the bottom of the flood control <br />capacity for flood control purposes consistent with the operating principles and <br />Kansas Condition No.1 and was the release of this water carried out in a manner <br />such that the water supply available to downstream users was not reduced? <br /> <br />4. Were the exchanges of transmountain water from the mainstream of the Arkansas <br />River into Trinidad Reservoir consistent with the operating principle. and were <br />the exchanges carried out in a manner that di d not reduce the water supply <br />available to downstream water users? <br /> <br />5. Did the total area of lands irrigated by the project exceed the maximum per- <br />mitted by the operating principles? <br /> <br />6. Were headgate diversions by project ditches consi stent with the operating <br />principles? <br /> <br />An initial draft of the report was released to the interested parties on <br />December 20, 1985. This draft report and its appendices documented the data, <br />analysis and conclusions reached during the investigations performed in 1985. <br />The investigations dealt predominantly with the six topics mentioned above and <br />their impacts during the years of the review period (1979-1984). The impacts <br />were presented in terms of changes of storages and flow in the project area, <br />but were not translated to impacts to the inflow to John Martin Reservoir. <br /> <br />The project lands that were irrigated iduring the review period were substan- <br />tially reduced because the irrigation facilities serving the model land were <br />being rehabilitated. Therefore, the conditions and impacts experienced are not <br />considered to be representative of those that would occur when all prOject lands <br />are being irrigated. <br /> <br />The initial draft report drew extensive comments from both the States of Kansas <br />and Colorado (significant letters of comment are contained in Appendix V). <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />