Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.,) <br /> <br />DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSFER PLAN <br /> <br />- <br />-~---- . <br />C.Q <br />" <br /> <br />The recommended plan involves leaving the transferred water <br /> <br />in the Arkansas river for delivery to John Martin reservoir. <br /> <br />Problems with the siphon and the ditch capacity would probably <br /> <br />raise objections from the Catlin board of directors to any pro- <br /> <br />posed transfer plan based on the delivery via the catlin canaL <br /> <br />In addition the transmission losses for delivery of the water via <br /> <br />the Arkansas river are relatively small. The state engineer <br /> <br />= <br /> <br />charges transmission losses at a rate of 0.07 percent per river <br /> <br />mile, which produces a loss of 5.5 percent in the 79 miles between <br /> <br />the Catlin headgate and John Martin dam. <br /> <br />It is doubtful whether transferring a portion of the Catlin's <br /> <br />water away from the ditch will affect the "per share" transport a- <br /> <br />tion losses suffered by the remaining shareholders. Reducing the <br /> <br />water in the ditch will reduce the water depth in the ditch and, <br /> <br />therefore, will reduce the seepage losses. Conversely, the reduced <br /> <br />amount of water in the ditch probably does not significantly reduce <br /> <br />the surface area nor the evaporation. These effects tend to cancel <br /> <br />each other and the resultant effect on a "per share basis" will be <br /> <br />negligible. <br /> <br />Table 5 shows the simulated operation of the transfer plan <br /> <br />during compact years 1949-72. The simulation is based on the <br /> <br />actual historic diversions made under the Catlin's two direct flow <br /> <br />decrees. These diversions are shown in column 2 of the table and <br /> <br />9 <br />