Laserfiche WebLink
<br />identified certain factors, such as declines in tributary <br /> <br />inflow and the 1980 Storage Resolution, which may have <br />caused the changes reflected by the mass diagrams, but has <br />ignored other equally or more probable causes. The mass <br /> <br />curv~ analysis technique, in and of itself, does not warrant <br />selective identification of causes without additional study. <br /> <br />Certain conclusions stated in the Colorado report are either <br /> <br />premature in nature, omitting pertinent facts, or cannot be <br /> <br />substantiated by the studies completed by the Committee. <br />Each of the conclusions listed in the Colorado report is <br /> <br />listed below follow~d by Kansas' comments. <br />Conclusion No.1: liThe inflow to John Martin Reservoir <br /> <br />has declined since 1949 as compared to the period 1908-1948 <br /> <br />due to changes in water rights administration in Colorado <br /> <br />when there is water in the conservation pool in John Martin <br /> <br />Reservoir and the reduction in inflow from the Purgatoire <br /> <br />River duing the period 1950-1980." <br /> <br />There are several factors which may have resulted in <br /> <br />I reduced inflows to John Martin Reservoir since 1949. The <br />) / conservation pool of John Martin Reservoir actual.1Y began <br />operation in 1943. Since that time, calls from below John <br /> <br />Martin Reservoir have been limited by agreement or the <br /> <br />Compact and have occurred less frequently than prior to <br />1943. The single and double mass diagrams of John Martin <br /> <br />Reservoir inflow actually show a decline in inflows starting <br /> <br />,in 1949 as compared to the 1943-1948 period. There was also <br /> <br />@! <br /> <br />s\).bstantial development of alluvial wells upstream of John <br />Martin Reservoir during the 1950s and 1960s which may have <br /> <br />-15- <br /> <br />. <br />