WSP03137

• File Number: 8143.400
• Description: John Martin Reservoir
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 10/23/1963
• Title: The Case for the Opposition to a Permanent Pool in John Martin Reservoir
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

:1

"~,/f'f. '
'i;';\",
':),//,,::':
, ; ;' .~'

,,'_/:-/

~,,'."-

~'i'
,:~;
~\'
"'~"
,'."

Adobe Creek Reservoir, Thurston Lake, and Nee G+onda Reservoir, of the Great Plains

group, periodically e~perience too high a salt content for satisfactory.fish propag&tion.

These sites could be utilized for boating, swimming, and hunting. The other sites ncrmally

receive new supplies of fresh water each year and eould be used for ffshing as well as

other forms of recreation. John Martin Reservoir itself contains storage water between

November 1 and April 1. This storage can be, and in fact is, utilized as a wild fowl

hunting area.

Summary

The statements listed be~ow would seem to eumm~rize the basic objections to the es-

tablishroent of a permanent pool in John Martin Reservoir:

1. The primary uses of the ReserVOir, inherent in the F~ood Control Act of 1936, are

for flood Qontrol and conservation of water for irrigation use.

2. John Martin Reservoir and the Colore-do... Kansas Arkansas River Compact have

resolved the differences between the two states con<lerning wate;t"s of the Arkansas

River. One of the reasons for disregarding a permanent pool in the original' ,plan

was to eliminate a source of dispute between these ~tatea.

3. The Reservoir is bei~ filled with sediment at the approximate rate of one-half of

one per oant of the o~jginal oapacity per ~ear. ~noluaion of a permanent pool

would certainly causa a higher rate of sedimentation and result in a shorter life

for the project.

4. The conservation pool has already lo~t nearly 58,000 acre feet of capacity to

sediment. Therefore, it would seem plausible that, in con&idering 8.Ily intrusion

into the flood aontrol portion, r~placement ot this loss should be ~iyen-first

priority.

5. It is the contention of irriRators below the Reservoir that a permanent pocl would

result in a decrease in va~uation of their river prioriti~g in the amount of

'1,633,500.00 per year, since the silt load of the river would be drast~ca~ly de-

creased. These priorities are property rights which must be protected.

6. Responsible 0111.cia18 of the Co~orado State Game and Fish Comm.1ssiQn and other

agencies have repeatedly stated that a 10,000 ac~e foot pool would not sustain

a permanent fish population.

7. It is felt that the Colorado Game, Fish and farks Department must unequivocally

state where it intends to purchase the necessary water and water rights for the

permanent pool. This will be necessary before it can be determined if the trans-

fer of these r~ghtB will damage present approp+istors.

8. No one lr8-S ever advsl1ced a plan of operationEl for the Arkansas River and John

Martin Res~rvoir after the permanent pool ~as been established. In view of the

uncertainti~s 1nvolved in the Galculation of water amounts, suoh a plan is

--,Page 8--