WSP02560 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

',".-.-. ~._'... ' ':.'., '~ illS:W ....... . .. ...... ;:: .j.. ;~. .... .'. "Water Available for Storage" "Demand on Reservoir" (a) Peroents of Colo. Diversions "Net Evaporation Losses" Conservation Pool Flood Pool "Flood Pool Spills" "Amounts of Usable Water" (b) Annually Summer Seasons Winter Seasons -2- Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 190.000 190.000 190.000 190,000 21% 151- 201- 301- 17.000 17,000 12,000 6,000 3.000 3,000 2,000 2.000 49, 000 49.000 39.000 29,000 121,000 121,000 137.000 153,000 121,000 86,000 98,000 107,000 0 35,000 39,000 46.000 Not ~s I (a) So-oalled" demand on reservoir," or the as sumed releases from storage. are the peroents shown of the oombined di- versions from Arkansas River (exolusive of imported wa-, ters) of all irrigation ditches in Colorado Water Dis- triots 14 and 17. above Ce.ddoa, and Water District 67. below Caddoa. - said assumed peroents being applicable in summer months only in Study 1, and year-round in Studies 2, 3 and 4. (b) So-called "e.moun ts of usable water" were oaloulated by subtracting evaporation losses and flood pool spills from so-oalled "water available for storage. tI 4. While the Kansas calculation procedure may be followed, the results are unoertain, and the document is difficult to disouss, for the reasons, among others. that words and terms are not defined, basic records and other data us ed in the oalculations are not included in the document, nor are the souroes of information disclosed. The tabulations were submitted without explanation as to the methods assumed for segregating streamflows as between those previously appropriated. diverted and used, and those heretofore unused and wasted. or as to the plans assumed for river and reservoir operation to govern the storage and release of water in and from the reservoir and its di- version and use from the river. ,. With respect to sources of information Colorado might assume, from the prooedure followed, that some of the records and basio data used by Kansas were previously compiled by Colorado; that streamflow records used had been prepared by Colorado and introduoed as exhibits in the oase of Colo- rado v. Kansas, that the rates of evaporation and siltation at Caddoa Reser- voir used by Kansas were based on estimates made by Colorado in connection with its so-called "Operations Plan F," which plan of reservoir and river operation WaS based on the provisions of that agreement entered in 1933 be- tween the officials and attorneys of the two States, concerning the construc- tion and operation of the Caddoa project, known as the t1Stipulation of 1933;t1