Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br /> <br />,..) <br /> <br />N <br />~ <br />-J <br />c..;, <br /> <br />many studies have been made of the Basin problems, th~ objectives <br />have been agency oriented, generally, sinsle purpose in scope, <br />limited geographically, and not sufficiently coordinated with other <br />agency prublems. Because of these reasons, we consider that a <br />USDA Cooperative River Basin Study in the Arkansas River Basin in <br />Colorado should be undertaken and completed as soon as possible. <br />This study will be beneficial to the State of Colorado in that it <br />would define the problems and needs in great~r detail and recommend <br />plans for their resolution. <br /> <br />KANSAS <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />In development of the information and data for the assessment <br />and particularly the SRF for the Kansas portion of ll03 and 1104, <br />we identified an arrsy of problem areas which all related to a physi- <br />cal PyogYBm of development. In some instances, these identified <br />problems were of'a statewide nature. Also in most instances the <br />problems identified had been or were scheduled for a planning or <br />implementation activity. Conseq~ently, an evaluation of these areas <br />indicated they were primarily of the Group B category. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />One major problem identified and which we classified as severe <br />and critical is the High Plains Groundwater Depletion - Ogallala area. <br />This problem was placed in Category A and is of interstate and inter- <br />basin concern. We recognize the current study now underway by the <br />states in cooperation with EDA but this problem is still a Category <br />A type. <br /> <br />It should be noted that in the identificstion of problems, no <br />attempt was made to cover the basic issue of funding and personnel or <br />the cooperative state-federal programs. Nor did we attempt to identi- <br />fy the basic problems of congreSSional/administrative/executive actions <br />which in many instances served to only add to the degree of confusion <br />that was already prevalent. <br /> <br />With respect to speCific items that should be noted on'the assess- <br />ment activities, we would submit the following: <br /> <br />.., <br /> <br />I. There has been a need for better and improved coordination <br />between WRC/NPAC and the field in the development of the basic data <br />and information. The current difference on historic or'base year data <br />points up this problem. No attempt was made to obtain base year data <br />from the field insofar as we know. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />2. Presentation of data by ASA has been of no value to the states <br />and there is still no data available by state boundaries. This seems <br />to be an inherent problem that everyone chooses to ignore at the federal <br />level and is one of the difficulties which has arisen with respect to <br />MCC/SRF data. <br /> <br />15 <br />