Laserfiche WebLink
<br />deplet~ns to flows of the Arkansas River have in fact <br />occurred. Both states appear to agree that usable stateline <br />flows declined during the 1970s. However, the two states <br />disagree about the interpretation of the mass diagrams for <br />inflows to John Martin Reservoir. Colorado contends that <br />these diagrams indicate that no postcompact depletions of <br />reservoir inflows other than those caused by administration <br />of the Compact itself have occurred. It is Kansas' position <br />that the necessary adjustments to account for increased <br />transmountain return flows'must be made before valid con- <br />clusions can be reached concerning these flows. <br />3. Colorado's current position, although contrary to <br />its the previously prepared studies, is that declines in <br />stateline flows during the 1970s are attributable solely to <br />decline in tributary inflows and that flows during the past <br />5 years have not returned to pre-1974 condition because of <br />changes caused by the 1980 Storage Resolution. Colorado <br />fails to address or consider the possibility that well <br />development may have affected streamflows. Likewise, <br />Colorado fails to account for the impact of transmountain <br />return flows. The estimated magnitude of both well <br />depletions and transmountain return flows is such that <br />failure to consider their effects on streamflows is <br />unreasonable. <br />4. Kansas concludes that the mass diagram analyses <br />indicate that declines to usable stateline flows have <br />occurred. These declines exceed those expected to be caused <br />by natural hydrologic variations. It is reasonable to <br />-34- <br />