My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03052
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03052
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:48:25 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:30:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8143.600.30A
Description
John Martin Reservoir - Other Studies
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
2/1/1944
Title
Plan for Operation of Caddoa Project and Administration of Rights in Arkansas River
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.
/
41
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 />-C'I-': <br /> <br />_hie, <br />Co.> <br />~ <br />0:. <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br />THE OPINION <br /> <br />3. Rei The Caddo a Project (Ccnt'd) <br /> <br />flood control and irrigation for the benefit of both States, should not be <br /> <br />construed as oontemplating benefits to one State at the expense of the <br /> <br />other. <br /> <br />The Kansas position, also briefly summarized, was that the Cad- <br /> <br />doa project need not be taken into aocount in defining the rights of Kan- <br /> <br />sas in the waters of the Arkansas River in Coloradol that the numerous re- <br /> <br />servoirs previously constructed in Colorado have operated to deplete the <br /> <br />water supply of the river to the injury of Kansasl and that the Oaddoa pro. <br /> <br />jeot, located on the main river in Colorado, will further deplete the water <br /> <br />supply and further diminish or entirely out off the Stateline flow enter- <br /> <br />ing Kansas, and thereby further injure the irrigation interests of that <br /> <br />State in the future. <br /> <br />Concerning reservoirs in general, the Opinion held that, in Colo- <br /> <br />rado, the supply has been supplemented by the extensive use of resarvoirs <br /> <br />for the storage of flood waters and winter flows not needed for irrigationl <br /> <br />that, though western Kansas affords sites for similar storage reservoirs, <br /> <br />but one small basin has been constructed in that Statel and that, on the <br /> <br />other hand, the storage in Oolorado, and the release of stored _ter to <br /> <br />supplement the natural flow of the stream in times of need, operates by <br /> <br />seepage and'return to the channel to stabilize and improve the flow at the <br /> <br />Stateline, and, to that extent, benefits irrigation in Kansas. <br /> <br />4. Conclusions from Opinion. <br /> <br />--- - -- - -~a)-- As affecting- the- plan-of-opera tion-and -administrati on_here,,- --- <br /> <br />in proposed, it is apparent that Colorado is not obligated to deliver at <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.