My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03823
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03823
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:52:20 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:00:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />0691 <br /> <br />PERMANENT POOL OPERATION <br /> <br />The proposed permanent pool would ride on top of the con- <br />servation pool to a maximum size of 15,000 acre-feet. It <br />would be limited, as required by P.L. 89-298, so that not <br />more than 10,000 acre-feet of flood control space could be <br />occupied. Evaporation would be charged to the permanent <br />pool on a daily basis and would be calculated by applying <br />the net evaporation rate to the additional area caused by <br />adding the permanent pool. Storable water delivered that <br />would cause the permanent pool to exceed its maximum allow- <br />able size would revert to the Arkansas River system and would <br />be available to the water users in Water District 67 and <br />Kansas, either as part of the conservation pool or as a direct <br />reservoir release. <br /> <br />During our discussions with representatives of the concerned <br />ditch companies, several issues were raised. These are dis- <br />cussed below: <br /> <br />.....The irrigators were concerned that the State would obtain <br />credit for the unmeasured inflow to the reservoir. <br />Studies6 show that this averages about 30 cfs. This need <br />not be a concern because the operational plan described <br />herein insures that the State would take credit only for <br />water originating from valid decreed sources it owns or <br />controls. <br /> <br />.....The establishment of the permanent pool in the reservoir <br />would alter the reservoir's sediment pattern. This would <br />include changing the locations within the reservoir area <br />where sediments would be deposited as well as changing <br />its overall trap efficiency. <br /> <br />.....Damage would be done to irrigators below John Martin <br />Reservoir because they would be delivered clear water <br />the entire year instead of just part of the year as in <br />the case under existing conditions. Silty water is <br />preferable to clear water because it reduces ditch losses <br />by depositing fine particles in the ditch banks and be- <br />cause it spreads more easily on the field. <br /> <br />-30- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.