Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 Martin Reservoir. <br /> <br />Because mass diagrams only reflect the <br /> <br />net impact of all upstream changes, it is premature to <br /> <br />conclude which factors have caused the change in relation- <br /> <br />ship on the curves. Based on the mass analyses alone, <br /> <br />Colorado's explanation of the decline in inflows to John <br />Martin is no more valid than the conclusion that well <br /> <br />depletions have been. offset by transmountain return flows <br />and~ therefore, no net change is reflected by the diagrams. <br /> <br />I Given the level of analysis, in other words, there is no <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />basis upon which to assign causes to the declines. <br /> <br />Conclusion No.2: "The inflow to John Martin Reservoir <br /> <br />has fluctuated considerably from year to year over the <br /> <br />period 1949-1984, but there is no apparent long-term trend <br />of decreasing or increasing inflow as shown by the best fit <br />lines on the dou~le mass curves of the inflow to John Martin <br /> <br />Reservoir plotted against Canon City and the index flow." <br /> <br />. l <br /> <br />I The diagram <br /> <br />curve No.2) was <br />, <br /> <br />referred to above (Colorado double mass <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />not included in the list of diagrams agreed <br /> <br />to by both states. <br /> <br />See pg. 3, Minutes of Committee meeting <br /> <br />of June 3, 1985. Ignoring the flood years of 1942, 1957 and <br /> <br />1965, the diagram referred to does show some breaks in 1943, <br /> <br />1949, 1958, 1966, and 1979. Perhaps the ,most significant <br /> <br />,factor overlooked by Colorado in arriving at its conclusion <br /> <br />is that the records for the Arkansas River at Las Animas <br /> <br />-16- <br />