Statewide Water Supply Initiative

1
Statewide Water Supply Initiative

• Western State Water Council
• Salt Lake City
• September 2004

2
Outline of Presentation

• Background, Goals, and Study Process
• Summary of Major Findings
• Answers to Key Questions
• Whats important to Coloradans in water
  management?
• How much water will Colorado need in 2030? How
  much will each basin need?
• What is being done to address these needs,
  statewide and by basin?
• How much are we short, and where are we short?
• What can be done about the shortfall?
• How much water is physically and legally
  available?
• Key Implementation Issues and Challenges
• Next steps

3
Background, Goals, and Study Process

• Legislative authorization May 2003
• Investigate all aspects of water supply and
  water demand in Colorado over the next thirty
  years
• Goal To help Colorado maintain an adequate
  water supply for its citizens and the
  environment, today and into the future
• Start date June 2003
• Report to be completed by November 15 and
  delivered to legislature by December 1, 2004

4
Background, Goals, and Study Process

• Guiding Principles
• Reconnaissance-level
• Respect Colorados local planning
• Bottom-up work with each of Colorados 8 river
  basins
• All solutions should be considered
  conservation, improvements of existing
  facilities, building new facilities, and others
• Cross-Section of Colorado Water Users and
  Interests
• Roundtable Participants
• Water providers
• Ranchers and farmers
• Recreational interests
• Business community
• Environmental interests
• Local government
• Technical Advisors
• Specific water expertise

5
(No Transcript)
6
Question 1 Whats Important to Coloradans in
Water Management?

• Sustainably Meet MI Demands
• Sustainably Meet Agricultural Demands
• Optimize Existing and Future Water Supplies
• Enhance Recreational Opportunities
• Provide for Environmental Enhancement
• Promote Cost Effectiveness
• Protect Cultural Values
• Provide for Operational Flexibility
• Comply with All Applicable Laws and Regulations

7
Summary of Major Findings

• Identified projects and processes can meet 80 of
  2030 MI needs
• Significant uncertainty exists
• Not judged in SWSI
• Supplies are not necessarily where/when demands
  are
• Compact entitlements not fully utilized in many
  basins
• In-basin solutions can address future MI needs
  but with impacts to agriculture, recreation and
  environment

8
Summary of Major Findings

• Conservation will be a major tool
• Will not meet all of future need
• Already accounted in many future plans
• Rural, agricultural, environmental and
  recreational interests
• Have unique needs
• Could benefit from state assistance
• Permitting
• Mitigation
• Funding
• Technical planning
• Reliability and sustainability of states
  groundwater resources needs to be addressed
• Water use data reporting

9
Question 2 How much water will Colorado need
in 2030? How much will each basin need?
10
Population Projections by Basin
Basin 2000 2030 Increase in Population Percent Change 2000-2030 Annual Growth Rate
Arkansas 835,130 1,292,985 457,855 55 1.5
Colorado 248,034 492,556 244,522 99 2.3
San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel 90,893 171,641 80,748 89 2.1
Gunnison 88,603 161,495 72,892 82 2.0
North Platte 1,586 1,986 400 25 0.8
Rio Grande 46,435 62,748 16,313 35 1.0
South Platte 2,985,586 4,911,601 1,926,015 65 1.7
Yampa / White / Green 39,273 61,410 22,137 56 1.5
Total 4,335,540 7,156,422 2,820,882 65 1.7
Source Colorado Department of Local Affairs
Demography Section
11
Statewide Gross MI and Self-supplied Industrial
Water Demands 2000 to 2030
Basin Total 2000 Gross Demand (AF) Projected Conservation Savings (AF) Projected 2030 Gross Demand (AF) Increase in Gross Demand (AF) Estimated Demand met by future water supplies and additional conservation (AF) Identified Gross Demand Shortfall (AF)
Arkansas 256,900 18,600 354,900 98,000 81,600 16,400
Colorado 74,100 7,800 136,000 61,900 60,900 1,000
San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel 23,600 2,400 42,400 18,800 13,800 5,000
Gunnison 20,600 2,100 35,500 14,900 12,500 2,400
North Platte 500 600 100 100
Rio Grande 17,400 1,400 21,700 4,300 4,300
South Platte 772,400 68,700 1,182,100 409,700 367,900 41,800
Yampa / White / Green 29,400 900 51,700 22,300 22,300
TOTAL 1,194,900 101,900 1,824,900 630,000 563,400 66,600
12
Statewide Agricultural Demands
Basin Current Estimated Irrigated Acres Average Total Diversions (AF) Period of Record for Average Diversions
Arkansas 538,100 1,769,900 1999 2001
Colorado 237,700 1,986,900 1975 1991
San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel 255,000 902,200 1975 2002
Gunnison 263,500 1,736,100 1975 2000
North Platte 95,700 396,900 1993 2002
Rio Grande 632,700 1,619,000 1975 1997
South Platte 1,003,500 2,545,500 1993 2002
Yampa / White / Green 118,400 652,000 1975 2002
TOTAL 3,151,200 11,605,000 -
Arkansas, South Platte and Rio Grande Basins
include estimates of alluvial groundwater
pumping
13
Question 3 What is being done to address
these needs, statewide and by basin?
14
Identified Projects and Processes Arkansas
Basin (1 of 2)
Subbasin Identified Projects and Processes
Upper Arkansas Preferred Storage Options Plan (PSOP) Re-operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas (Fry-Ark) Project Turquoise and Pueblo Reservoir Enlargements 10 to 12 percent reduction in demand for storage via conservation Augmentation Plans Increased use of Fry-Ark MI allocation Agricultural transfers
Urban Counties Active conservation PSOP Maximizing existing water rights Alluvial aquifer w/augmentation Reuse Exchanges Agricultural transfers Southern Delivery System Increased use of Fry-Ark allocation
15
Identified Projects and Processes Arkansas
Basin (2 of 2)
Subbasin Identified Projects and Processes
Lower Arkansas Active Conservation PSOP Arkansas Valley Pipeline Exchanges Increased use of Fry-Ark allocation Agricultural transfers Groundwater
Eastern Plains Groundwater (non-tributary)
Southwestern Arkansas Existing water rights Augmentation plans Agricultural transfers
16
Identified Projects and ProcessesColorado Basin
County Identified Projects and Processes
Eagle Existing supplies Agricultural transfers Ruedi Reservoir contracts
Garfield Existing supplies Agricultural transfers Ruedi and Wolford Reservoir contracts
Grand Existing supplies UPCO Process?
Mesa Existing supplies Agricultural transfers Ruedi and Wolford Reservoir contracts Jerry Creek Reservoir
Pitkin Existing supplies Ruedi Reservoir contracts
Summit Existing supplies UPCO Process?
17
Identified Projects and Processes Gunnison Basin
County Identified Projects and Processes
Delta Tri-County Water District Water Rights Existing Water Rights
Gunnison Meridian Lake Existing Water Rights Augmentation Plans
Hinsdale Existing Water Rights Augmentation Plans
Mesa Existing Water Rights
Montrose Tri-County Water District Water Rights Existing Water Rights
Ouray Existing Water Rights
18
Identified Projects and Processes Rio Grande
Basin
County Identified Projects and Processes
Alamosa Existing water rights, groundwater, and augmentation plans
Conejos Existing water rights, groundwater, and augmentation plans
Costilla Existing water rights and groundwater
Mineral Existing water rights, groundwater, and augmentation plans
Rio Grande Existing water rights, groundwater, and augmentation plans
Saguache Existing water rights, groundwater, and augmentation plans
19
Identified Projects and Processes San
Juan/Dolores/ San Miguel Basin
County Identified Projects and Processes
Archuleta Dry Gulch Reservoir Existing supplies and water rights
Dolores Existing supplies and water rights
La Plata Animas-La Plata Project Existing supplies and water rights
Montezuma Dolores Project Existing supplies and water rights
Montrose Existing supplies and water rights
San Juan Existing supplies and water rights
San Miguel Existing supplies and water rights

20
Identified Projects and Processes South Platte
Basin (1 of 2)
County Identified Projects and Processes
Denver Metro Active Conservation Existing supplies Denver Northern Firming Thornton Water Supply and Storage Company transfer Agricultural transfers New storage (including gravel lakes) and reservoir enlargements Reuse Purchase water existing major water provider Treating lower quality water sources
South Metro Active Conservation Implementation of South Metro Conjunctive Use Plan or alternative Reuter-Hess Reservoir Aurora Long-range Plan East Cherry Creek Plan Agricultural transfers and reuse Additional non-tributary groundwater Purchase water existing major water provider Treating lower quality water sources
21
Identified Projects and Processes South Platte
Basin (2 of 2)
County Identified Projects and Processes
Northern Active Conservation Windy Gap Firming Northern Integrated Supply Plan Halligan and Seaman Reservoirs enlargement New storage including gravel lakes Agricultural transfers CBT acquisition Exchanges Annexation policies
Upper Mountain Drilling of exempt wells Cooperative agreements with existing major water providers Development of tributary groundwater supplies and plans for augmentation with agricultural transfers and new storage
High Plains Additional non-tributary groundwater
Lower Platte Augmentation of tributary groundwater with agricultural transfers CBT
22
Identified Projects and ProcessesYampa/White/Gre
en Basin
County Identified Projects and Processes
Moffat Existing supplies and water rights and reservoirs and reservoir enlargements (Stagecoach and Elkhead)
Rio Blanco Existing supplies and water rights from White River and tributaries
Routt Existing supplies and water rights and reservoirs and reservoir enlargements (Stagecoach and Elkhead)
23
Question 4 How much are we short, and where
is the shortfall?
24
Statewide Gross MI and Self-supplied Industrial
Water Demands 2000 to 2030
Basin Total 2000 Gross Demand (AF) Projected Conservation Savings (AF) Projected 2030 Gross Demand (AF) Increase in Gross Demand (AF) Estimated Demand met by future water supplies and additional conservation (AF) Identified Gross Demand Shortfall (AF)
Arkansas 256,900 18,600 354,900 98,000 81,600 16,400
Colorado 74,100 7,800 136,000 61,900 60,900 1,000
San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel 23,600 2,400 42,400 18,800 13,800 5,000
Gunnison 20,600 2,100 35,500 14,900 12,500 2,400
North Platte 500 600 100 100
Rio Grande 17,400 1,400 21,700 4,300 4,300
South Platte 772,400 68,700 1,182,100 409,700 367,900 41,800
Yampa / White / Green 29,400 900 51,700 22,300 22,300
TOTAL 1,194,900 101,900 1,824,900 630,000 563,400 66,600
25
Municipal and Industrial Gaps
Basin Estimated Remaining Gap, AFY in 2030 Locations of Gap
Arkansas 16,400 Upper and Southwestern regions (augmentation credits) and and Lower region and unincorporated El Paso County (firm water supply)
Colorado 1,000 Unincorporated areas. Gap will be larger in Summit and Grand if UpCO does not result in additional supplies.
Dolores/San Juan/ San Miguel 5,000 San Miguel (water supply), Dolores (need for augmentation credits) and San Juan (infrastructure to deliver existing and future water supplies)
Gunnison 2,400 Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Upper Gunnison and Ouray County (need for augmentation credits) and other unincorporated areas not served by Water Districts
North Platte 0 No gap anticipated, but storage required for drought reliability
Rio Grande lt100 Physical availability of groundwater, but will need augmentation credits for well pumping
South Platte 41,800 All areas
Yampa/White/ Green 0 Concerns over drought reliability due to transit losses. Oil shale development in White River basin could significantly increase demands.
Total 66,600
26
Identified Remaining Gap and Potential
Additional Uncertainty with Planned Projects
and Processes
27
Potential Changes in Irrigated Acres
28
Environmental and Recreational Needs

• Provide flow or physical habitat enhancement of
  streams or lakes including
• Habitat for fisheries
• Habitat for endangered species
• Recreation
• Water quality and/or
• Wetlands
• Riparian enhancements

29
Question 5 What can be done about the
shortfall?
30
Discussion of Options
Option Benefits Issues
Active Conservation Reasonable cost. No permit requirements. Local Control. May result in demand hardening and decrease reliability. Customer acceptance. Revenue impacts.
Agricultural efficiency Can increase reliability and stretch existing supplies. Potential water quality benefits. Loss of return flows may impact downstream water rights and environment. Ability to pay. Cannot sell saved water unless CU is reduced. Potential compact issues.
Permanent Agricultural Transfer Permanent right. Senior water rights. Simpler permitting. Local socio-economic impacts. Payment in lieu of taxes. Water court procedure. Revegetation requirements. Potential loss of open space. Storage is required to firm the yield.
31
Discussion of Options
Option Benefits Issues
Interruptible Agricultural Transfer Improves MI reliability. Provides more stable income to agricultural users during droughts. Need guarantee that interruptible supplies will remain in irrigation. Ag supplies may not be in needed location or of sufficient quantity. Agricultural rights must have dry year yields.
Rotating Agricultural Transfer (Fallowing) with Firming for Agricultural Use Preserves agricultural use and improves MI and agricultural reliability. Need guarantee that rotating supplies will remain in irrigation. May be more expensive than permanent ag transfer. Some agricultural demands (hay and orchards) are difficult to fallow. Ag supplies may not be in needed location or of sufficient quantity.
New storage Diversifies water sources. Does not impact existing water rights Permitting and mitigation requirements. Storage to yield ratio.
32
Discussion of Options
Option Benefits Issues
Enlarge Existing Storage Lesser environmental impacts than new storage Does not diversify water sources. Permitting and mitigation requirements. Storage to yield ratio.
MI Reuse for Irrigation Improves MI reliability. Maximizes successive uses of water. Can be very expensive. Must have consumable effluent. Wastewater treatment plant needs to be near irrigation demands. Effluent may have been used by junior water rights or agriculture.
MI Reuse by Exchange Improves MI reliability. Maximizes successive uses of water. Requires that sufficient exchange potential exists. Downstream water quality impacts. Effluent may have been used by junior water rights.
Control of Non-Native Phreatophytes Benefits all users MI, Agriculture, Environment and Recreation Does not benefit specific users. Would require regional cooperation. Demonstration projects may provide better information on costs and benefits
33
Environmental and RecreationalOptions

• Environment
• Recreation
• Mitigation vs. Enhancement
• Approaches to addressing needs

34
Conceptual Environmental/Recreational Option
Mitigation of Enhancements
Enhancement Flow Regime
Enhancement Permanent Pool
Project Mitigation
Project Yield (proponent)
35
Question 6 How much water is physically and
legally available?
36
Factors Affecting Future Physical and Legal Water
Availability

• Institutional Barriers
• Permitting Uncertainty
• Public opposition
• Interstate Compacts and Decrees
• Endangered Species
• CWCB Instream Flows
• Recreational In Channel Diversions
• Full utilization of
• Existing rights
• Trans-mountain diversions
• Agricultural and Power Calls
• Reservoir Operations
• Development of Conditional Water Rights

37
Future Water Needs

• MI gaps
• MI uncertainty
• Existing agricultural shortages
• Environmental enhancements
• Recreational enhancements
• Are these being adequately addressed at the local
  level?

38
Key Implementation Issues Challenges

• Institutional constraints
• Flexibility in use of water rights
• Intergovernmental issues, e.g., infrastructure
  sharing
• Permitting
• Permitting process and requirements (e.g., NEPA,
  ESA, 404, County land use, Probable Maximum
  Flood)
• Financial
• Ability to pay
• Ability to assign costs to all users
• Adequacy of existing loan and grant programs
• Other needs and challenges

39
Statewide Water Supply Initiative

• Western State Water Council
• Salt Lake City
• September 2004