Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />The flows at the various locations considered can be compared for <br /> <br />the various periods discussed above by computing the averages for <br /> <br />each period. <br /> <br />In comparing the average pre- and post-compact flows <br /> <br />at a location, the absolute magnitude of changes can be quanti- <br /> <br />fied, Table 9 shows the average annual flows at each location for <br /> <br />the pre-compact, 1949-1973, and 1974-1984 periods. <br /> <br />Tables 10 and <br /> <br />11 show the averages for the same periods for the winter and <br /> <br />summer seasons, respectively, <br /> <br />The annual usable stateline flow <br /> <br />averaged 121,300 acre-feet per year for the post-compact period <br /> <br />until 1973., but averaged only 72,600 acre-feet per year for 1974 <br /> <br />to 1984, or 60% of the 1949-1973 average, <br /> <br />The absolute decline <br /> <br />was 48,700 acre-feet per year for this eleven year period. The <br /> <br />last two years of this period were extremely high runoff years and <br /> <br />raised the average considerably, <br /> <br />The winter and summer averages <br /> <br />for 1974-1984, averaged 50% and 63% of the 1949-1973 averages <br /> <br />respectively. The 1949-1973 usable stateline flows averaged 109% <br /> <br />of the pre-compact usable flows, <br /> <br />The Arkansas River at Las Animas annual flows declined from the <br /> <br />pre-compact average of 213,500 acre-feet to 101,500 acre-feet for <br /> <br />The 1974-1984. period average actually in- <br /> <br /> <br />However, the winter flows at Las J. <br /> <br /> <br />Animas declined from 15,600 to 9,900 acre-feet, in other words <br /> <br />the 1949-1973 period. <br /> <br />creased to 125,900 acre-feet, <br /> <br />37%. <br /> <br />Since these winter flows are always considered inflows to <br /> <br />the conservation pool of John Martin Reservoir, this decline <br />