Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~.:> <br /> <br />.. <br />~ <br />c:> <br />~ <br /> <br />moisture carried over from previous overirrigations. <br /> <br />Monthly amounts of consumptive use associaEed-with-2;098--- <br /> <br />shares of the Catlin Canal Company under historic irrigation <br /> <br />practice are shown in table 4. These amounts are the total <br /> <br />crop irrigation requirements during the months that were computed <br /> <br />as described above and reduced according to the percentage of <br /> <br />state-owned shares. Annual totals ran~edfrom 4,900 acre-feet to <br /> <br />3,000 acre-feet and averaged 4,069 acre-feet. <br /> <br />On January 25, 1973, Fred Boydston, Demmus Harvey, and I <br /> <br />met with Frank Milenski in Rocky Ford. Mr. Milenski is president <br /> <br />of the board of directors of the Catlin Canal Company. We discussed <br /> <br />two possible alternatives for delivering the state-owned water to <br /> <br />John Martin reservoir and toured a portion of the Catlin system. <br /> <br />One alternative is to continue the diversion of the state-owned <br /> <br />water at the Catlin headgate and measure it out of the ditch at <br /> <br />either the Timpas creek crossing or the crooked arroyo spill. The <br /> <br />other alternative would involve taking the state-owned water out of <br /> <br />the canal and making the delivery to John Martin reservoir in the <br /> <br />Arkansas river. Each alternative has some advantages. The primary <br /> <br />advantage of leaving the state's water in the canal is that the <br /> <br />administration may be simplified because the water would be trans- <br /> <br />ported around the headgates of several other ditches. Also, Mr. <br /> <br />Milenski reports that the time required to deliver water to the <br /> <br />- - - --- <br />Fort Lyon Cana1.-Company-neadgaEe -is~e.ss--in-the -canal-than-in--bhe-- -- <br /> <br />5 <br />