WSP04401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ~ . t t Mr. Knapp furnished to the Committee a copy of comments informally pre- pared by a special advisory committee in Kansas for submission to the Governor of Kansas, analyzing the Fryingpan-Arkansas report. The comments of the Kan- sas special advisory committee were as follows: liThe proposed initial development of the Gunnison-Arkansas Pro- ject provides for the diversion of water from the Colorado Basin in- to the Arkansas Basin within the .state of Colorado" The proposed plan of operation provides a system 01' exchange rrh:'.ch would permit the use 01' native water for power production and downstrea'l1 storage 1'or later irrigation use while imported vlater would take the place 01' native water in upstream storage. Pro~osed changes in irriga- tion practices could result in a considerable reduction in the quan- tity of water entering John Martin Reservoir. Under the terms of the Colorado-Kansas Compact, Kansas is in effect limited to 40 per. cent of the water entering John Martin i~servoir. The State of Kan- sas has no desire to oppose any irrigation improvements vnthin the State of Colorado as long as such improvements do not violate the t~rms of the existing interstate compact. "The proposed development, as presently planned, recommends the elimination of \vinter irrigation in parts of Colorado. As a conse- quence the return flow from historical vanter irrigation plus the spills which have been wasted in connection vnth such irrigation would no longer flow into John ~artin neservoir as they have in the past to become a part of the supply for dO\1nstream irrigators. An analysis of the records indicates that the return flows and spills during the winter months (November to march, incl.) have contributed substantially to the arillval water supply of John Martin Reservoir. "11' the construction of the Initial Development of the Gunnison- Arkansas Project will reduce the water supply to John Uartin Reser- voir, some provision must be m3de for compens~ting for this loss. Releases could be made fr~m 0t~rage in Pueblo neservoir according to some I1lUtually acceptable fonn;la. "The initial development of the Gunnison-Arkansas plan would greatly modify the stream flow and irrigation pattern throughout the Arkansas Basin in Colorado. Until a procedure is Forked out to meet requirements of the Compact that will be satisfactory to the interests of both states, the State of Kansas cannot consent to approval of this pro posed plan." Considerable attention was devoted to the last paragraph of the Kansas committee comments with reference to the exact meaning of the concluding por- tion which read, ",~. * * * * the State of Kansas cannot consent to approval of this proposed plan." Mr. Knapp said he was not a member of the advisory committee which drew up the comments and that he had not studied the comments in detail prior to coming to the meeting in Lamar, but he said he felt certain that it was not the intention of the State of Kansas to oppose or object to the Fryingpan- Arkansas Pl:'oject or to the diversion which would benefit Colorado thereby. t