Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the exLstence of increased transrnountain return flows. It <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />is impossible from this diagram to determine the relativA <br />-:-------_......_--~-_..- <br /> <br />magI:litude of each impact. <br />------- <br /> <br />Conclusion No.3: "Usable state line flows increased <br /> <br />durin~ the period 1949-1973, reflecting the benefits result- <br /> <br /> <br />ing when there is additional water to be conserved by <br /> <br />operations of John Martin Reservoir. This increase occurred <br /> <br />despite a decline in inflow from the Purgatoire River after <br /> <br />1950." <br /> <br />The conservation pool of John Martin Reservoir began <br /> <br />, operation in 1943. Eecause of the development of alluvial <br /> <br /> <br />wells during the 1949-1973 period, it is not likely that the <br /> <br />benefits which did accrue to the stateline represent all of <br /> <br />the benefits to which Kansas is entitled by the Compact. It <br /> <br />should also be noted that some decline in the flows of the <br /> <br />Purgatoire River was anticipated with the commencement of <br /> <br />,', <br /> <br />the operation of John Martin Reservoir for the same reasons <br />{previously discussed for the Arkansas River, i.e. reduced <br />downstream calls. Colorado has failed to demonstrate that <br /> <br />.; . ': ~.I._ <br /> <br />all the decline in the Purgatoire River flows after 1950 was <br /> <br />due to drought conditions. Some of the decline may be <br />attributable to postcompact development such as stock ponds, <br /> <br />flood detention reservoirs, or wells. <br /> <br />Conclusion No.4: .Usable state line flows declined <br /> <br />substantially during the period 1974-1979. This appears to <br />be directly the result of a decline in tributary inflow from <br />plains drainage areas of eastern Colorado. The magnitude of <br />this decline in tributary inflow is shown by the streamflow <br /> <br />-18- <br /> <br />;" ~ <br />