Laserfiche WebLink
<br />by att~ibuting their cause to hydrologic changes and the <br />operation of John Martin Reservoir pursuant to the 1980 <br /> <br />Storage Resolution. In Kansas' opinion, Colorado's readi- <br /> <br />ness to attribute the indicated depletions essentially to <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />\ <br />\ <br />\ <br /> <br />natural causes ~li'osef~ll;L!gnorg~--.!:l1e _",~iil~I1_,o!,.}:.!:cl1.n.i_c;:,:_l <br /> <br /> <br />~C:1:03.an?:_~xist~!l.<J__enqine_~~.':<J. analyses that point unequivo...c.:- <br /> <br /> <br />~lly to manm~~Eiig~. <br /> <br />Colorado's Interpretation of the Mass Analyses <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado's first report describes the interpretation <br /> <br /> <br />which Colorado makes of the mass diagram analyses and <br /> <br /> <br />isolates the causes ~or the changes notwithstanding <br /> <br />Colorado's recognition that a mass diagram analysis cannot <br /> <br />be used to "explain the reasons for trends or changes in the <br /> <br />relationship between two sets of streamflow data." Id., <br />p. 1. Additionally, despite Colorado's acknowledgment of <br />changes, Colorado still concludes that this initial analysis <br /> <br />indicates that "the waters of the Arkansas River have not <br /> <br />been, and are not being, materially depleted in usable <br /> <br />quantity or availability for use to the water users in <br /> <br />Colorado and Kansas by any of the matters raised by the <br /> <br />Kansas representatives." Id., p. 2. <br /> <br />Given the limitations inherent in a mass diagram <br /> <br />ana~ysis, as acknowledged by both states, and the many <br />changes which have taken place with the administration of <br /> <br />water rights and use of water in the Arkansas River Basin <br /> <br />since the Compact was ratified, Kansas does not believe .that <br /> <br />the Committee's investigation to date is adequa~e to sub- <br />stantiate this conclusion. Colorado has selectively <br /> <br />-14- <br /> <br />"L 'd.. <br />