WSP04401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( ( ~', . Mr. Knapp furnished to the Committee a copy of comments infonnally pre- pared by a special advisory committee in Kansas for submission to the Governor of Kansas, analyzing the Fryingpan-Arkansas report. The conunents of the Kan- sas special advisory committee were as follows: "The proposed initial development of the Gunnison-J.rkansas Pro- ject provides for the diversion of riater from the Colorado Basin in- to the Arkansas Basin within the utate of Colorado. The proposed plan of operation provides a system of exchange which would permit the use of native water for power production and dovmstrea'!l storage for later irrigation use while imported vlater would take the place of native water in upstream storage. Pro,osed changes in irriga- tion practices could result in a considerable reduction in the quan- tity of water enteri~b John ~artin Reservoir. Under the terms of the Colorado-Kansas Compact, Kansas is in effect lL~ted 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 ~~thin the State of Colorado as long as such improvements do not violate the terms of the existing interstate compact. . "The proposed development, as presently planned, recorrunends the elimination of winter irrigation in parts of Colorado. As a conse- quence the return flow from ilistorical .vinter irrigation plus the spills which have been wasted in connection VQth such irrigation would no longer floH into John kartin heservoir as they have in the past to become a part of the supply for do~~stream irrigators. hn analysis of the records indicates that the return flows and spills during the winter months (Nove:nber to "arch, incl.) have contributed substantially to the annual ',;ater sup,Jly of John Martin Reservoir. "If the construction of the Initial Development of the Gunnison- Arkansas Project will reduce the Hater supply to John l<o...tin f.eser- voir, some provision must be made for compens~ting for this loss. Releases could be made from storage in Pueblo ileservoir according to some mutually accepta:>le .l.'orroula. "The initial development of the Gunnison-Arkansas plan would greatly modify the suea;n flow and irrigation pattern throughout the hrkansas Basin in Colorado. Until a procedure is worked out to meet requirement" or the Compact that ",ill be s~.tisfactory to the interests of bo:h staces, the State of Kansas cannot consent to approval of tllis proposed 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, ".:;. J,' ". " * the State of Kansas cannot consent to approval of this proposed plan." .' JJr. Knapp said he vias not a mell'ber 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 Project or to the diversion which would benefit Colorado thereby.