My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06521
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06521
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:23:09 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:41:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8111.831
Description
Arkansas River Compact Administration - Article VIII (H) Investigations
Basin
Arkansas
Date
1/1/1985
Author
David Pope
Title
Supplement Report to ARCA Regarding Article VIII (H)
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />John M~rtin Reservoir. Therefore, Colorado's position is <br /> <br />( that the .." diagram analy'" indieat. that no po'toompaet, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />manmade depletions in violation of the Compact have occur- <br /> <br />red. <br /> <br />Kansas' first report, entitled "Report to the Arkansas <br /> <br />River Compact Administration Regarding the Article VIII (H) <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />Investigation of Alleged Violations of the Arkansas River <br />Compact," September 4, 1985, concludes that postcompact <br />declines in flows both into John Martin Reservoir and at the <br /> <br />stateline exceed those which would have been caused solely <br /> <br />by hydrologic variations or the operation of the conserva- <br /> <br />tion pool of John Martin Reservoir. Accordingly, Kansas' <br /> <br />. position is that additional investigation is necessary in <br />I <br />1 <br />\ order to determine and quantify the causes of these post- <br />, <br /> <br />compact depletions. <br /> <br />The conclusions drawn from the mass diagrams differ for <br /> <br />essentially the same reason that the individual state <br /> <br />representatives to the Investigation Committee could not <br />N.' <br /> <br />agree on the proposed scope of work. With respect to the <br /> <br />Compact violations alleged by Kansas, Kansas predicates its <br />position on numerous studies of Arkansas River depletions <br /> <br />which preceded the Administration's Resolution of March 28, <br />1985. Accordingly, Kansas has conceptualized its <br />interpretation of the changes in slope in the diagrams <br /> <br />against a background of related, but extraneous engineering <br /> <br />. studies which document postcompact depletions of the <br />For this reason, combined with the fact <br /> <br />Arkansas ,River. <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />that mass diagram analysis can neither suggest nor establish <br /> <br />the cause of any indicated depletion, Kansas is not willing <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />....->- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.