WSP07047 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

>,' ~'..:...~-,-- o r--l ~ W ~ tv - - -10---- The writer made an investigation of this in the 1930 and 1931 study, and , . ":".~..2'. concluded that from 1995 to that time the most severe period was 1916 to May, 1921. Since that time there has occurred the recent period of drouth, during which time the shortages under the Caddoa reservoir would have been more severe than during the 1916 to 1921 period. However, it is still the writer's conclusion that from 1895 to 1913 the reservoir could have been operated on the basis of the assumed requirements in the two states without shortages any more severe than those which occurred in the 1916 to 1921 period. Attention is called to the fact that the years 1895, 1900, 1905, and 1907 were flood years, when there would have been substantial spills from the reservoir. Following are summary tables indicating the benefits that would be derived from the Caddoa reservoir by the two states on the basis of the above aSffUIDed operation: Column 3 Table No.1, representing Colorado benefits, indicates the amount of additional water that would have been supplied to canals below the reservoir, including the reservoir water which formerly went to the Amity canal, Bince under the assumed set-up the Fort Lyon canal would get the benefit from this water. The benefit accruing to the state of Kansas was determined by deducting 52,000 acre-feet from the total amount of water supplied seasonably at the State Line. It may be noted from the summary at the end of the table that releases from the reservoir in an average annual amount of about 5,000 acre-feet would have been neceseary to take care of the 52,000 acre-feet of useable water before charging,Kansas for flood water.