Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />0697 <br /> <br />CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />The proposed plan for the water right change and the <br />operational criteria would allow creation of John Martin <br />permanent pool and can be implemented without injury to <br />the Catlin Canal Company or to other water users. The <br />method of water delivery to the State would not interfere <br />with operation of the Catlin Canal. Sufficient water would <br />be delivered to the stream to compensate for return flow <br />from historic irrigation practice. <br /> <br />Several issues concerning the proposed permanent pool operation <br />are unresolved. These seem to be legal questions tather than <br />engineering questions. They involve the concept of whether <br />irrigators are legally entitled to the maintenance of exist- <br />ing water quality, sediment patterns, and bank storage con- <br />ditions resulting from the existing operation of John Martin <br />Reservoir. Spills of State permanent pool water will mitigate <br />any damages caused by changes in the reservoir operation. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />The proposed transfer and operation plans will provide an <br />adequate permanent pool in John Martin Reservoir. Of course, <br />recreational opportunities will not be as valuable when the <br />conservation pool is empty. However, the permanent pool would <br />be more than adequate for survival of fish life and would be <br />very important to waterfowl. <br /> <br />-36- <br />