|
<br />../~f;:'~~
<br />~,-Z~, ~:"-
<br />..j,.... ';.'
<br />
<br />... ;.: ~.
<br />
<br />.,;
<br />
<br />..-,'
<br />
<br />,...., .\..
<br />
<br />. f!JJ;~;' .
<br />
<br />.<
<br />
<br />.'. "..
<br />
<br />- ;';-;'17
<br />
<br />n~'" s'>l'J
<br />o~.. ,..(;.
<br />
<br />-4-
<br />
<br />to Stateline." As here used by Kansas, "net aooretions" are the gains or in-
<br />creases in streamflow volumes between Lamar and the Stateline. With the few
<br />exoeptions noted below, net acoretions were oaleulated as the differenee be-
<br />tween river flow volumes recorded at the two gaging stations. Thus the Kan-
<br />sas formula. A = SL - (SL - L), indicates tl-s.t A ("available for storage")
<br />equals L (lemar flaw). Since the total State line flow averaged 260,700 aere
<br />feet annually, and since Kansas classifies 190.000 aere feet thereof as com~
<br />ing from Caddoa, the remaining 70,700 acre feet was assumed to have originated
<br />below Caddoa, Expressed another way, the Kansas prooedure indioates trat the
<br />190,000 acre feet of Stateline flow, calculated to have passed 'Lamar, was as-
<br />sUlned to have passed Caddoa, and to have been "available' for store,ge" in
<br />Caddoa reservoir.
<br />
<br />8. The few exceptions to the general rule above mentioned appear to
<br />have resulted from substitutions by Kansas of assumed gains, between Lemar
<br />and Stateline, in several months of the study period (usually at tii:e s of ma-
<br />jor floods) when the records themselves disclose losses. The effeot of suoh
<br />adjustments, amounting to changes in official records may be illustrated by
<br />comparing the 190,000 acre feet 'calculated by Kansas, with the 193,600 aore
<br />feet annually recorded at Lamar. Suoh a differenoe, amounting to 3,600 aore
<br />feet, or less than 2 percent, is relatively small, and at this time may be
<br />ignored.
<br />
<br />9. While the terms "available for storage" and "amounts of usable wa-
<br />ter" are not defined in the document under discussion, it is apparent from
<br />an analysis of the calculation prooedure followed by Kansas, as herein later
<br />more fully diseussed, that the 190,000 acre feet of Caddoa flow considered
<br />"available for storage" is exclusive of quantities herein termed "Caddoa flows
<br />heretofore used in Colorado" but ineludes streDJllflows in some months in exoess
<br />of available and effeotive storage capaeity in the assumed oompleted irriga-
<br />tion pool, end ineludes the ealeulated "amounts of usable-water," - caloulated
<br />by deducting evaporation losses and flood pool spills from the 190,000 acre
<br />feet oonsidered "available for storage;" and tr1'l t the calculated "amounts of
<br />usable water," in turn, include quantities herein termed "Caddoa flows hereto-
<br />fore used in Kansas," as well as "new water," - so oalled by Kans9.s, - attri-
<br />butable to operations of Caddoa reservoir, which segregations of the oalcu-
<br />lated "amounts of usable water" were not made in the document under discus-
<br />sion, but are neoessa'ry to an understanding of the' quantities of water there-
<br />in reported.
<br />
<br />10. The plan of reservoir oper9.tion assumed by Kansas, while unexplained,
<br />appears to consider "Caddoa flows heretofore used in Colorado" as unavailable
<br />for storage, wheree.s "Caddoa flaws heretofore used in Kansas" are treated as
<br />"available for storage," - whioh raises a question as to how the irrigation
<br />pool in Caddoa reservoir shall be operated, and what are its purposes as au-
<br />thorized by Congress? 2xclusive of the primary purpose of flood control, ao.
<br />complished by storage of water in the flood pool, at times of major floods
<br />and abnormal streamflows, the irrigation pool was authorized for "stream-
<br />flow regulation and water conservation" for the benefit of irrigation inter-
<br />ests in Colorado and Kansas, Both streamflow regulation and water eonserva-
<br />
|