WSP03823

• File Number: 8135.300
• Description: Ditch Companies - Catlin
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 1/29/1976
• Author: D Helton R McCabe
• Title: Catlin Transfer Plan and John Martin Permanent Pool Operation
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0683

be for the State to obtain all of its water at crooked
Arroyo, but canal capacity limitations precludes this
possibility.

.....water available to the State for storage in John Martin
Reservoir would be limited to the actual consumptive use
associated with the historic land use. This can be
accomplished by limiting storable water to 80.5 percent
of the total obtained at the State headgates. Under the
historic conditions of compact years 1949-73, this limit-
ation would produce the amounts shown in column 4 of
Table 7. The remaining water would be left in the Ar-
kansas River system to compensate for historic return
flow.

.....Transbasin and storage water used by the catlin Canal
Company would be kept separate from the Catlin's direct
flow water. It could be handled in either of two ways
special deliveries of this water could be made to the
State headgates for transportation to John Martin, or
the State could forego its use of this water and depend
upon the direct flow source. In the first case, all
transbasin and storage water delivered to State headgates
would be storable in John Martin, reduced only for tran-
sit losses. In the latter case, reductions of assess-
ments paid by the State would be made to compensate for
water it did not receive. The plan presented herein
assumes that transmountain and storage water would be
delivered to the State.

.....water would be left in the Arkansas River to compensate
for return flow from historic irrigation practice in
proper amount, location, and time.

In this analysis, water returning to the Arkansas River
system during historic irrigation practice was divided
into two types: that resulting from canal losses and
that resulting from lateral losses and the irrigation
of lands.

Return flow resulting from canal losses was not evaluated.
State plans would allow the continued diversion of State

-22-