|
<br />
<br />12 0 ~ 1285 ARKANSAS RIVER COMPACT
<br />
<br />than would be otherwise necessary, because the intrastate situation
<br />in Colorado between the users below the Caddoa Dam and the users
<br />above the dam necessitated representation on that administration of a
<br />water user and resident below the dam, and one above, on the main
<br />stem of the river. And for purposes of adjusting possible conflicts,
<br />a third member was to officiate, and that is the Director of the Colorado
<br />Water Conservation Board,
<br />In Kansas the situation was not quite the same, but none the less
<br />the situation is that there are three members, two residents and water-
<br />ri~ht owners in counties in Kansas from the State line down to Garden
<br />CIty, and the chief of the water-resources department of the Depart-
<br />ment of Agriculture of Kansas.
<br />Now, as I say, by using water that was hitherto not only unavailable
<br />but damaging, we have conferred a benefit uponal! of the ditches in
<br />Colorado and in Kansas. The Caddoa Reservoir has a capacity
<br />originally of some 702,000 aCfe-feet, of which 280,000, in round num-
<br />bers, is allocated to flood-control.purpos~ the rest conservation.
<br />Siltation is an important problem. vv e had an engineering com-
<br />mittee consisting of the Federal representative, General Kramer, wh()
<br />is an engineer, and who participated in the construction of Caddoa.
<br />for the government, Jl([r. Knapp of Kansas, and Mr. Patterson of
<br />Colorado, who since then has resigned and left the State.
<br />We have found, however, that the actual experience as to siltation,
<br />which has involved occurrences during quite heavy water years, par-
<br />ticularly 1942, ,which was the heaviest year of water supply in the
<br />Arkansas River, has perhaps made it less serious a problem than we'
<br />had anticipated and that the engineering reports based on theoretical
<br />operation had allowed for.
<br />I feel, llJld say as seriously as I can, that this compact would be of
<br />.benefit to both States. I know I approached my function in the Com-
<br />mission for the purpose only of bringing about a result that I thought
<br />was fair and equitable to all interestedhincluding the Government
<br />agencies, and we think we have accomplis ed the purpose sought.
<br />Now, if I have not said enough or have said too much, I will be glad.
<br />to elaborate,
<br />The CHAIRMAN. I am interested, Mr. Vidal, in a little further de-
<br />velopment of the manner in which you reached this 60-40 division.
<br />As I glanced through the cOI\lpact, I observed that the users in the
<br />State of Colorado had the right to use and reuse the water without.
<br />regard to priorities below the dam, and that each State is permitted
<br />to demand llJld use the water in such fashion that the Kansas'draft
<br />depends upon the flow in the river to which is added the return flow
<br />at the State line. Am I correct in that?
<br />Mr. VIDAL, The delivery to Kansas is of an equivalent to that 40
<br />percent at the State line,
<br />Senator KERR. I did not understand.
<br />Mr. V IDAr" The delivery to Kansas is the equivalent of that 40 per-
<br />cent of 'the storage at the State line j and, of course, accretions which
<br />may be large or small help make up tnat amount.
<br />The CHAIRMAN, That is, whatever return flow there may be helps
<br />to make up that 40 percent! .
<br />Mr. VIDAL. Yes. Out of the Colorado irrigation which is measured
<br />at the State line.
<br />
<br />.:','
<br />
<br />>':
<br />
<br />',,:'
<br />;~
<br />
<br />
<br />I
<br />f:_,;;'
<br />
|