Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Demand for conservation renl rdea.::cs began again at 2 :00 P.M. <br />on September 7, 19()5, and varied frequently in volume through the <br />balance of the irrigation season. ThL' demands during this period were <br />made by Colorado. as K,lI1sas requirements '-vere met hy sufficient flows <br />being availahle at the Sr=ttcline. <br /> <br />This was the first year in the hIstory of Juhn Milrtin RcsL'rvoir <br />that water has invaded thL' fluod puol. Maximum sturagL' was rccorJed <br />on August 25, 1965, at 429,557 a(:[c-fcL't. Water in storage ;It the end <br />of the irrigation sea~on W;lS 375,433 acre-feet ;It d,:,:vatinn 3R51.91, of <br />which 364,443 acrc-feet \\,;1.5 conservation stor:lgc. <br /> <br />Water released from the rcservo:r for irrigation demand was <br />108,899 acre-feet ami f!o::x.l water rde:lsed was 13R)Y2 acre-feet, for <br />a totaJ of 247,291 acre-fect, as illustrated ill C1ppcrllJ.;ces B-6i\, B-I0 and <br />B- II. River flow during the irrigation SC:l.son when the reservoir was <br />empty was in excess of 35,000 acre-feet. <br /> <br />After many months of study of proposeJ operi-lting criteria and <br />construction plans in whid1 no agrcl.:mcnt could he rcacht'd between the <br />states of Colorado and Kllnsas, the Colorado Game, Fish and Parks <br />Department awarded a c:::ntract fer construction of a 2,900 acrc-foot <br />recreation re-servoir on Clay Creek. This Cre~k is an intermittent <br />tributa.ry of the Arkansas River bclcw John Martin Reservoir. It was <br />the contention of Kansas th,lt the proposed rcsl'rvoir on Clay Crl'ek <br />would result in a materidl depletion of Wrlter availa.ble for use in <br />Kansas under the terms of thl' Compact. Based on this contention, in <br />late May, K;]nsas filed with the Supreme Court uf the Unitt:u. Sti-ltcs <br />a Motion for Leave to File a Complaint anu the Complaint. Colorado <br />denied that the rescrvoir materially depleted the water :lvailable for <br />Kansas under the Compact. In the later part of July, Colorado filed <br />with the Court a Brief in Opposition to Mutinn fer Ll.:avL' tu File :1 <br />Com plaint. <br /> <br />The general floods mentioned abovt: \\';lshl.J out the nearly com- <br />pleted Clay Creek D,m on June 17, 1965, ,md with the subject of the <br />controversy removed, at ;t Spc(:i;d Meeting of the i\uministration on <br />July 23, 1965, an agreemcnt wa.s arrived' at between ColOritdo and <br />Kansas on reconstruction plans and supervisinn of operation. The two <br />states then filed with tne United States Supreme Court an Agreement <br />of Parties to Dismiss Pbintiffs Motion for Leave to File Complaint <br />and Complaint, <br /> <br />8, Gaging Stations <br /> <br />Streamflow records of sa.tisfactory accuracy were obtained at the <br />Compact stations. Emph:l.sis was continued nn performing additional <br />field work and providll1g streamflow data to the Administration and to <br />State officials as required. <br /> <br />It will be noted thet the computed d,ily demands oy Colorado and <br />Kansas in Appendices B-10 and R-ll do not :llw:1Ys :lgrec with the <br /> <br />10 <br />