COLORADO WATER for the 21 ST CENTURY ACT PROGRESS UPDATE From THE SOUTH PLATTE BASIN ROUNDTABLE...

COLORADO WATER COLORADO WATER for thefor the

2121STST CENTURY ACT CENTURY ACTPROGRESS UPDATE PROGRESS UPDATE

From From

THE SOUTH PLATTE BASIN THE SOUTH PLATTE BASIN ROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLE

March 25, 2010March 25, 2010

Sterling, COSterling, CO

22

Colorado's Water Supply Future

South Platte Basin Roundtable South Platte Basin Roundtable Nonconsumptive Needs AssessmentNonconsumptive Needs Assessment

Bob StreeterBob Streeter

66

WhyWhy are we developing an are we developing an NCNA?NCNA?

Yes, it’s required by statute, but more importantly…Yes, it’s required by statute, but more importantly…

The NCNA will The NCNA will provide an objective, science-based set of toolsprovide an objective, science-based set of tools for for BRTs and other stakeholders.BRTs and other stakeholders.– Priority StreamsPriority Streams– Flow QuantificationFlow Quantification

To be used To be used to make informed decisionsto make informed decisions about future water supply about future water supply management. For example:management. For example:– What are the most important streams and rivers for our environment What are the most important streams and rivers for our environment

and recreation?and recreation?– How much water would we need to sustain those values?How much water would we need to sustain those values?– What tools and strategies can we use?What tools and strategies can we use?– How can we develop new water supplies that avoid impacts or provide How can we develop new water supplies that avoid impacts or provide

multi-purpose benefits to priority streams and wetlands?multi-purpose benefits to priority streams and wetlands?

77

Statewide Nonconsumptive Needs Statewide Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment MethodologyAssessment Methodology

EstablishPrioritiesEstablishPriorities

QUA

NTIF

ICAT

ION

QUA

NTIF

ICAT

ION

Build UponAttributes

Build UponAttributes

Areas Where BRTs Choose

to Conduct Quantification

Areas Where BRTs Choose

to Conduct Quantification

Pilot WatershedFlow Evaluation

Tool(s)

Pilot WatershedFlow Evaluation

Tool(s)

PRIO

RITI

ESPR

IORI

TIES

Site-SpecificQuantificationSite-Specific

Quantification

IMPLEMENTATION

88

ProductsProducts

GIS coverages representing Colorado’s GIS coverages representing Colorado’s important environmental and important environmental and recreational attributesrecreational attributes

Map of Basin Roundtable prioritized Map of Basin Roundtable prioritized areas and reachesareas and reaches

Results of flow evaluation tools and site-Results of flow evaluation tools and site-specific instream flow pilot studiesspecific instream flow pilot studies

Identification of flow and non-flow Identification of flow and non-flow related resource management optionsrelated resource management options

99

Initial Attributes ConsideredInitial Attributes ConsideredCWCB Instream Flow RightsCWCB Instream Flow RightsCWCB Natural Lake LevelsCWCB Natural Lake LevelsCWCB water rights where water CWCB water rights where water availability had a role in availability had a role in appropriationappropriationAudubon important bird areasAudubon important bird areasCDPHE WQCD 303(d) listed CDPHE WQCD 303(d) listed segmentssegmentsRare Riparian Wetland Vascular Rare Riparian Wetland Vascular PlantsPlantsSignificant Riparian/Wetland Significant Riparian/Wetland CommunitiesCommunitiesBoreal Toad Critical HabitatBoreal Toad Critical HabitatDucks Unlimited ProjectsDucks Unlimited ProjectsGreenback Cutthroat TroutGreenback Cutthroat TroutWaterfowl Hunting/Habitat ParcelsWaterfowl Hunting/Habitat ParcelsDucks Unlimited Focus AreasDucks Unlimited Focus AreasWhite Water ParksWhite Water ParksWild and Scenic ReachesWild and Scenic Reaches

Gold Medal Trout StreamsGold Medal Trout StreamsGold Medal Trout LakesGold Medal Trout LakesRecreational In-Channel Recreational In-Channel DiversionsDiversionsRafting and Kayak reaches Rafting and Kayak reaches (flatwater and whitewater)(flatwater and whitewater)High Recreation CorridorsHigh Recreation CorridorsNationwide Rivers InventoryNationwide Rivers InventoryAdditional Wilderness Area Additional Wilderness Area WatersWatersPlains and Northern Leopard FrogPlains and Northern Leopard FrogPreble’s Jumping MousePreble’s Jumping MouseRiver OtterRiver OtterYellow Mud TurtleYellow Mud TurtleCommon Garter SnakeCommon Garter SnakeOther Threatened and Other Threatened and Endangered Fish SpeciesEndangered Fish Species

1010

South Platte Basin South Platte Basin Attribute CategorizationAttribute Categorization

EnvironmentalEnvironmentalEnvironmentalEnvironmental

Special Value WatersSpecial Value WatersState Endangered, State Endangered,

Threatened and Threatened and Species of ConcernSpecies of Concern

Rare Plants and Rare Plants and Significant Plant Significant Plant

CommunitiesCommunities

RecreationalRecreationalRecreationalRecreational

ImportantImportantFishingFishing

Whitewater and Whitewater and Flatwater BoatingFlatwater Boating

Waterfowl Habitat Waterfowl Habitat and Recreationand Recreation

High Recreation High Recreation CorridorsCorridors

Why are we here?Why are we here?

1.1. PLAN UpfrontPLAN Upfront– Plan for multi-objective projects upfront when an area Plan for multi-objective projects upfront when an area

includes nonconsumptive needsincludes nonconsumptive needs– Avoid long National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Avoid long National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and

litigation processes (be a useful guide for water supply litigation processes (be a useful guide for water supply planning up front), planning up front),

– Avoiding Endangered Species Act “train wrecks” (help plan Avoiding Endangered Species Act “train wrecks” (help plan to prevent species of special concern from becoming to prevent species of special concern from becoming federally listed),federally listed),

– Point to win/win opportunities for future multi-objective Point to win/win opportunities for future multi-objective projects, andprojects, and

– Help identify where future conflicts may occurHelp identify where future conflicts may occur2.2. Cultural, Ethical, and Aesthetic ValuesCultural, Ethical, and Aesthetic Values3.3. EconomicsEconomics

1212

Next StepsNext Steps

Quantification of water needsQuantification of water needs

Implementation of projects to sustain and Implementation of projects to sustain and improve recreational and environmental improve recreational and environmental attributesattributes

1313

1515


South Platte Basin Roundtable South Platte Basin Roundtable

Consumptive Needs AssessmentConsumptive Needs Assessment

Joe FrankJoe Frank

Colorado Water for the Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act21st Century Act

Consumptive Needs AssessmentConsumptive Needs Assessment

Basin RoundtablesBasin Roundtables– ““Develop a basin-wide consumptive and non-Develop a basin-wide consumptive and non-

consumptive water supply needs consumptive water supply needs assessment.”assessment.”

Consumptive Needs: Municipal, industrial Consumptive Needs: Municipal, industrial and agriculturaland agricultural

Non-consumptive Needs: Environmental Non-consumptive Needs: Environmental and recreationaland recreational

South Platte Basin RoundtableSouth Platte Basin Roundtable

Three-Part Approach to Consumptive Three-Part Approach to Consumptive Needs Assessment:Needs Assessment:

1.1. 2004 Statewide Water Supply Initiative 2004 Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI), Phase 1. (SWSI), Phase 1.

Adopted as an Adopted as an interiminterim needs needs assessmentassessment

2.2. Detailed analysis of five key areasDetailed analysis of five key areas

3.3. Assessments based on 2050 demandsAssessments based on 2050 demands

Map of the RoundtableMap of the Roundtable

Part 1: Statewide Water Supply Part 1: Statewide Water Supply Initiative, Phase 1Initiative, Phase 1

Findings based on 2030 demands:Findings based on 2030 demands:– Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demands Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demands

projected to increase statewide by 630,000 projected to increase statewide by 630,000 acre-feet (AF).acre-feet (AF).

– M&I demands in the South Platte Basin M&I demands in the South Platte Basin Roundtable area were projected to increase Roundtable area were projected to increase by 200,000 AF.by 200,000 AF.

– Optimistic projections by local M&I providers Optimistic projections by local M&I providers indicate the ability to meet 80% of the indicate the ability to meet 80% of the increased demand.increased demand.

Findings, cont’dFindings, cont’d– The gap or shortage indentified for 2030:The gap or shortage indentified for 2030:

Statewide: 118,000 AFStatewide: 118,000 AF

South Platte Basin Roundtable: 28,000 AFSouth Platte Basin Roundtable: 28,000 AF

Overall South Platte: 90,600 AFOverall South Platte: 90,600 AF

Note: One acre-foot is a volume of water Note: One acre-foot is a volume of water one foot deep over one acre of area. One one foot deep over one acre of area. One acre-foot is also 325,851 gallons.acre-foot is also 325,851 gallons.



2030 Agricultural Demands for the South 2030 Agricultural Demands for the South Platte Basin:Platte Basin:- - 20002000 Irrigated LandIrrigated Land 1,027,000 acres1,027,000 acres

Water DeficitWater Deficit 257,000 ac-ft*257,000 ac-ft*- 2030- 2030 Irrigated LandIrrigated Land 850,000 acres850,000 acres

Water DeficitWater Deficit 210,000 ac-ft*210,000 ac-ft*

Note that the total irrigated acres are projected to Note that the total irrigated acres are projected to decrease by 2030.decrease by 2030.

* Consumptive use numbers.* Consumptive use numbers.

Part 2: Five Key AreasPart 2: Five Key Areas

The consumptive needs assessment The consumptive needs assessment involves the detailed analysis of Five Key involves the detailed analysis of Five Key Areas:Areas:

1.Competition for the same water supply1.Competition for the same water supply

2. Identification of any unappropriated water2. Identification of any unappropriated water

3. Current and historical river administration3. Current and historical river administration

4. Increasing use of wholly consumable effluent4. Increasing use of wholly consumable effluent

5. Water conservation plans by providers5. Water conservation plans by providers

Part 2: Five Key AreasPart 2: Five Key AreasConclusionsConclusions

1.1. There is significant competition for the same There is significant competition for the same water supplies including competition from the water supplies including competition from the Denver Metro AreaDenver Metro Area

2.2. There is very little un-appropriated water There is very little un-appropriated water availableavailable

3.3. There will be increased frequency and duration There will be increased frequency and duration of senior calls on the riverof senior calls on the river

4.4. Increase reuse of consumable effluent will result Increase reuse of consumable effluent will result in less water in the South Platte Riverin less water in the South Platte River

5.5. Water conservation will help reduce future water Water conservation will help reduce future water demands but will not alone be sufficient to meet demands but will not alone be sufficient to meet future demandsfuture demands

Part 3: Consumptive Needs Part 3: Consumptive Needs AssessmentAssessment

Approach to the Needs Assessment:Approach to the Needs Assessment:

– Projection of 2050 Agricultural DemandsProjection of 2050 Agricultural Demands

– 2050 Municipal and Industrial Demands 2050 Municipal and Industrial Demands Projected StatewideProjected Statewide

– Available Water SupplyAvailable Water Supply

– Calculation of the 2050 Projected Gap Calculation of the 2050 Projected Gap or Shortage or Shortage

Part 3: Consumptive Needs Part 3: Consumptive Needs AssessmentAssessment

2030 Projected Agricultural Demands:2030 Projected Agricultural Demands:

– 2005 irrigated acres were used as a 2005 irrigated acres were used as a base line for projecting future base line for projecting future Agricultural water needs. Agricultural water needs.

– Due to the high decree of uncertainty in Due to the high decree of uncertainty in estimating the 2050 irrigated acreage estimating the 2050 irrigated acreage the decision was made by the the decision was made by the Roundtable to use updated 2030 Roundtable to use updated 2030 acreage estimates fromacreage estimates from SWSI Phase 1. SWSI Phase 1.

2030 Projected 2030 Projected Agricultural Demands, cont’dAgricultural Demands, cont’d

2005:2005: Irrigated LandIrrigated Land 840,000 acres840,000 acres Water DeficitWater Deficit 210,000 AF*210,000 AF*

2030: Irrigated Land 2030: Irrigated Land 684,000 -- 797,000 acres684,000 -- 797,000 acres Water DeficitWater Deficit 171,000 -- 198,000 171,000 -- 198,000

AF*AF*

The current and projected Agricultural water The current and projected Agricultural water shortage in the overall basin:shortage in the overall basin:– 200,000 acre-feet of consumptive use*200,000 acre-feet of consumptive use*– 364,000 acre-feet of actual diversion364,000 acre-feet of actual diversion– Note: That the irrigated acres have decreased Note: That the irrigated acres have decreased

70,000 acres from 2001 to 2005.70,000 acres from 2001 to 2005.

Part 3: Consumptive Needs AssessmentPart 3: Consumptive Needs AssessmentMunicipal and Industrial ProjectionsMunicipal and Industrial Projections

2050 Population Estimates2050 Population Estimates

LocationLocation Year/RangeYear/Range PopulationPopulationStatewideStatewide 20052005 4,782,0004,782,000

2050 Low2050 Low 8,664,0008,664,000

2050 Med2050 Med 9,331,0009,331,000

2050 High2050 High 10,327,00010,327,000

Denver MetroDenver Metro 20052005 2,359,0002,359,000

2050 Low2050 Low 4,052,0004,052,000

2050 Med2050 Med 4,289,0004,289,000

2050 High2050 High 4,728,0004,728,000

2050 Population Estimates, cont’d2050 Population Estimates, cont’d

LocationLocation Year/RangeYear/Range PopulationPopulationSouth Platte BasinSouth Platte Basin 20052005 945,000945,000

RoundtableRoundtable 2050 Low2050 Low 1,779,000 1,779,000

2050 Med2050 Med 1,902,000 1,902,000

2050 High2050 High 2,079,0002,079,000

Logan, Morgan,Logan, Morgan, 20052005 60,10060,100

Sedgwick,Sedgwick, 2050 Low2050 Low 97,50097,500

WashingtonWashington 2050 Med2050 Med 103,600103,600

CountiesCounties 2050 High2050 High 113,500113,500

Data Source: Colorado Water Conservation Board “State of Data Source: Colorado Water Conservation Board “State of Colorado 2050 Municipal and Industrial Water Use Projections.”Colorado 2050 Municipal and Industrial Water Use Projections.”

Part 3: Consumptive Needs AssessmentPart 3: Consumptive Needs Assessment2050 M&I Water Demand2050 M&I Water Demand

LocationLocation Year/RangeYear/Range Acre-FeetAcre-FeetStatewideStatewide 20082008 1,200,0001,200,000

2050 Low2050 Low 2,100,0002,100,000

2050 Med2050 Med 2,300,0002,300,000

2050 High2050 High 2,900,0002,900,000

Denver MetroDenver Metro 20082008 490,000490,000

2050 Low2050 Low 749,000749,000

2050 Med2050 Med 795,000795,000

2050 High2050 High 877,000877,000Note: For the Medium 2050 Demand the State will need Note: For the Medium 2050 Demand the State will need another 1,100,000 AF of water.another 1,100,000 AF of water.

2050 M&I Water Demand, cont’d2050 M&I Water Demand, cont’d

LocationLocation Year/RangeYear/Range Acre-FeetAcre-FeetSouth Platte BasinSouth Platte Basin 20082008 268,000*268,000*

Roundtable Roundtable 2050 Low2050 Low 485,000 485,000

2050 Med2050 Med 515,000 515,000

2050 High2050 High 558,000558,000

Logan, Morgan,Logan, Morgan, 20082008 27,100 27,100

Sedgwick,Sedgwick, 2050 Low2050 Low 49,300 49,300

WashingtonWashington 2050 Med2050 Med 51,200 51,200

CountiesCounties 2050 High2050 High 54,20054,200

**The 2008 demand reflects a 13% decrease from the 2000 The 2008 demand reflects a 13% decrease from the 2000 demand. This reduction is due to current conservations efforts.demand. This reduction is due to current conservations efforts.

2050 M&I Water Demand, cont’d2050 M&I Water Demand, cont’d

2050 Medium Demand for the South Platte 2050 Medium Demand for the South Platte Basin Roundtable area will need another Basin Roundtable area will need another 247,000 AF of water for M&I 247,000 AF of water for M&I 2050 Medium Demand for Denver Metro 2050 Medium Demand for Denver Metro area will need another 305,000 AF for M&Iarea will need another 305,000 AF for M&ICompare this to the following:Compare this to the following:– C-BT Project Annual Yield: 213,000 AFC-BT Project Annual Yield: 213,000 AF– Poudre River Annual Yield: 298,000 AFPoudre River Annual Yield: 298,000 AFWe will need another C-BT Project and We will need another C-BT Project and another Poudre River.another Poudre River.

SWSI: South Platte Basin and SWSI: South Platte Basin and Metro 2050 new demandMetro 2050 new demand

South Metro Denver Metro Northern Upper Mountain Lower Platte

Moffat Firming Windy Gap Firming NISP Halligan-Seaman

South Metro Counties Rueter-Hess

ECCV Northern Non-trib GW Denver Metro

Counties Aurora Prairie

Waters Thornton

Poudre Pipeline Ag Transfers Gravel Lakes Northern Counties

CBT acquisitions, ag transfers and local storage

552,000 AF new demand

in 2050(mid range)

South Platte Basin RoundtableSouth Platte Basin RoundtableMajor Identified Projects & ProcessesMajor Identified Projects & Processes

Identified Projects and Processes (IP&Ps)Identified Projects and Processes (IP&Ps)

– Northern AreaNorthern Area 146,500 AF146,500 AF

– Upper MountainUpper Mountain 16,500 AF 16,500 AF

– Lower RiverLower River 8,900 AF 8,900 AF

– High PlainsHigh Plains 800 AF 800 AF

– TOTALTOTAL 172,700 AF172,700 AF

South Platte Basin RoundtableSouth Platte Basin RoundtableMajor Identified Projects & ProcessesMajor Identified Projects & Processes

Northern Area:Northern Area: Annual YieldAnnual YieldWindy Gap FirmingWindy Gap Firming 30,000 30,000

AFAF

Northern Integrated Supply PlanNorthern Integrated Supply Plan 40,000 AF40,000 AF

Halligan-Seaman Reservoir ProjectsHalligan-Seaman Reservoir Projects 20,000 AF20,000 AF

TOTALTOTAL 90,000 AF90,000 AF

These projects are currently in the permitting process These projects are currently in the permitting process and do not have the necessary permits to move and do not have the necessary permits to move forward.forward.

Meeting the 2050 M&I Basin DemandMeeting the 2050 M&I Basin Demand

South Platte (excludes Denver Metro Area)South Platte (excludes Denver Metro Area)

LowLow MediumMedium HighHigh

2050 Demand2050 Demand 485485 515515 558558

Current DemandCurrent Demand 268268 268268 268268

New DemandNew Demand 217217 247247 290290

IP&Ps at 100%IP&Ps at 100% 173173 173173 173173

GapGap 4444 7474 117117

Gap Calculation (all values in 1000 ac-ft)

Meeting the 2050 M&I Basin DemandMeeting the 2050 M&I Basin Demand

South Platte and Denver Metro Area CombinedSouth Platte and Denver Metro Area Combined

LowLow MediumMedium HighHigh

2050 Demand2050 Demand 1,2341,234 1,3101,310 1,4351,435

Current DemandCurrent Demand 758758 758758 758758

New DemandNew Demand 476476 552552 677677

IP&Ps at 100%IP&Ps at 100% 319319 319319 319319

Gap (100%)Gap (100%) 157157 233233 358358

Gap Calculation (all values in 1000 ac-ft)

Meeting the 2050 Meeting the 2050 M&I Basin Demand M&I Basin Demand

The amount of additional future water The amount of additional future water supply depends on the rate of success of supply depends on the rate of success of the IP&P’s and which population scenario the IP&P’s and which population scenario happens.happens.

The Roundtable looked at supply The Roundtable looked at supply numbers based on 25%, 50%, 75% and numbers based on 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% success rate of the IP&P’s.100% success rate of the IP&P’s.

Mid-Range Mid-Range Hypothetical ExampleHypothetical Example

Assume the IP&P’s are 50% successful Assume the IP&P’s are 50% successful and assume 2050 medium-range and assume 2050 medium-range population.population.– Gap (i.e.: the shortage) to meet in the South Gap (i.e.: the shortage) to meet in the South

Platte Basin Roundtable is 160,000 AFPlatte Basin Roundtable is 160,000 AF– Gap to meet in Denver Metro area is 233,000 Gap to meet in Denver Metro area is 233,000

AF (393,000 AF total for South Platte) AF (393,000 AF total for South Platte) – The statewide gap at 50/50 is approximately The statewide gap at 50/50 is approximately

800,000 AF.800,000 AF.

3939

Existing Supplies

IPPs if 50% Successful

2050 Water Needs High

2050 Water Needs Medium

2050 Water Needs Low

South Platte Basin Roundtable’s Future M&I Water NeedsSouth Platte Basin Roundtable’s Future M&I Water Needs

South Platte Basin RoundtableSouth Platte Basin RoundtableCombined M&I and Agricultural DemandCombined M&I and Agricultural Demand

If 50% of IP&P’s are successful, the If 50% of IP&P’s are successful, the mid-range gap in 2050 due to M&I mid-range gap in 2050 due to M&I and agricultural shortages in the and agricultural shortages in the South Platte Basin Roundtable area South Platte Basin Roundtable area is estimated to be 360,000 AF* is estimated to be 360,000 AF* (593,000 AF* for overall Basin)(593,000 AF* for overall Basin)

*Consumptive use*Consumptive use

Conclusions of the RoundtableConclusions of the Roundtable

The 2050 water supply gap in the Basin is large The 2050 water supply gap in the Basin is large and likely growing.and likely growing.The future water supply gap in the Basin is an The future water supply gap in the Basin is an urgent problem that must be addressed with all urgent problem that must be addressed with all due speed.due speed.Efficient use of all existing water supplies within Efficient use of all existing water supplies within the Basin is already happening and will increase the Basin is already happening and will increase in the futurein the futureLarge scale dry-up of irrigated agriculture will Large scale dry-up of irrigated agriculture will cause significant economic damage to the Basin cause significant economic damage to the Basin and the State.and the State.The Basin and the State must proceed with a The Basin and the State must proceed with a sense of urgency to evaluate and develop all sense of urgency to evaluate and develop all potential water supply options.potential water supply options.

4343


State Wide Perspective – Path ForwardState Wide Perspective – Path Forward

Eric HecoxEric Hecox

ObjectivesObjectives

1) Current Planning Activities1) Current Planning Activities

2) On-Going Technical Support of Needs 2) On-Going Technical Support of Needs AssessmentAssessment

4444

4545

Current Planning Activities

Draft ReportsDraft Reports

State of Colorado 2050 Municipal and Industrial Water State of Colorado 2050 Municipal and Industrial Water Use ProjectionsUse Projections

Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment Priorities MappingNonconsumptive Needs Assessment Priorities Mapping

Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool Pilot Study for Roaring Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool Pilot Study for Roaring Fork and Fountain Creek Watersheds and Site-Specific Fork and Fountain Creek Watersheds and Site-Specific Quantification Pilot Study for Roaring Fork WatershedQuantification Pilot Study for Roaring Fork Watershed

Evaluation of Water Supply StrategiesEvaluation of Water Supply Strategies

To access the reports visit: To access the reports visit:

http://cwcb.state.co.us/IWMD/COsWaterSupplyFuture/

4646

http://cwcb.state.co.us/IWMD/COsWaterSupplyFuture/

Key FindingsKey FindingsColorado’s population will nearly double by 2050 requiring between Colorado’s population will nearly double by 2050 requiring between

830,000 and1.7 million acre-feet of additional water 830,000 and1.7 million acre-feet of additional water to meet M&I to meet M&I

needsneeds

Environmental and recreational Environmental and recreational water needs have been identified water needs have been identified

statewide. Identifying projects and methods to meet those needs statewide. Identifying projects and methods to meet those needs

will continue to be a prioritywill continue to be a priority

In order to meet these consumptive and nonconsumptive needs, In order to meet these consumptive and nonconsumptive needs,

Colorado will rely on a mix Colorado will rely on a mix of conservation, agricultural transfers, of conservation, agricultural transfers,

and new water supply developmentand new water supply development

Meeting Colorado’s consumptive and nonconsumptive needs will Meeting Colorado’s consumptive and nonconsumptive needs will

require substantial investment. For example, a new water supply require substantial investment. For example, a new water supply

project yielding 250,000 acre-feet will project yielding 250,000 acre-feet will cost between $7.5 to $10 cost between $7.5 to $10

billion. billion. This exceeds previous cost projections.This exceeds previous cost projections.

4747

4848

Existing Supplies





4949

Existing Supplies





5050

Existing Supplies





Reduction in Existing Supplies Due to Climate Change

Reduction in Existing Supplies Due to Loss of Groundwater

Development of Portfolios and Evaluation of Water Supply Strategies

• During 2008, Colorado's water community embarked on a visioning process to address the following questions: – If we let Colorado's water supply continue to evolve

the way it is now, what will our state look like in 50 years?

– Is that what we want it to look like? – If not, what can and should we do about it?

51

• The status quo approach to water supply will not lead to a desirable future for Colorado– Status Quo = Significant loss of irrigated acres– If not the Status Quo then what?

• Colorado will need a range of demand side and supply side strategies

• We need to work together to examine the trade-offs, risks, and uncertainties associated with different strategies and combination of strategies

52

IBCC/CWCB Visioning ProcessBasic Conclusions

1,403 KAF

100 KAF

High Demand

Low Supply

Mid Demand

Mid Supply

High Demand

High Supply

Low Demand

Low Supply

Low Demand

High Supply

Mid Demand

Low Supply

Mid Demand

High Supply

1,174 KAF

1,123 KAF

944 KAF

835 KAF

769 KAF

700 KAF350 KAF

Colorado River System Supply

Sta

tew

ide

Dem

and

Building combinations of strategies or “portfolios” for Building combinations of strategies or “portfolios” for meeting Colorado’s future water needs. Different mixes of:meeting Colorado’s future water needs. Different mixes of:

-- IPPs-- IPPs-- Conservation-- Conservation

-- New Supply Development-- New Supply Development-- Ag Transfers-- Ag Transfers

5454

5555

PortfoliosPortfolios

Building combinations of strategies or “portfolios” for meeting Colorado’s future water needs – different mixes of:• IPPs• Conservation• New Supply Development• Ag Transfers• Reuse

Strategies Projects and MethodsP

ort

foli

o

• Green Mountain• Yampa

• Flaming Gorge• Blue Mesa

Status Quo Scenario & Status Quo Scenario & Supply PortfolioSupply Portfolio

5757

IPP - Success rate varied by basinIPP - Success rate varied by basinConservation - 20% reduction from 2000 Conservation - 20% reduction from 2000 water usage rates by basinwater usage rates by basinNew Supply – Future development of CO New Supply – Future development of CO River water beyond IPPs will occur for River water beyond IPPs will occur for uses on the West Slopeuses on the West SlopeAg Transfer – Remaining East Slope M&I Ag Transfer – Remaining East Slope M&I Demands will be met through ag transfersDemands will be met through ag transfers

5858

Status Quo Portfolio(Incremental Ag Transfer)

5959

M&I Needs Statewide West Slope

North Platte/Rio Grande

M&I Water Needs (AFY) 922,800 203,100 11,200SSI Water Needs (AFY) 84,400 45,300 0Oil Shale Water Needs (AFY) 43,700 43,700 0

Total M&I Needs (AFY) 1,050,900 292,100 11,200

StrategiesIPPs (AFY) 281,000 94,800 3,900Conservation (AFY) 85,400 34,100 2,300New Supply Development (AFY) 163,200 163,200 0

Reuse (AFY) 0 0 0New Supply Development Sub-Total (AFY) 163,200 163,200 0

Ag Transfer (AFY) 349,300 0 5,100Reuse (AFY) 172,100 0 0

Ag Transfer Sub-Total (AFY) 521,400 0 5,100

Reduction in Irrigated Acres (percent) 19% 4% 1%28% Arkansas44% South Platte

Reduction in Irrigated Acres (acres) 501,100 38,667 455,600 6,80088,200 Arkansas

367,400 South Platte

39%

East Slope

182,300

708,500

0747,600

49,000

39,100

0

516,300

00

344,200172,100

Alternative Scenario & Alternative Scenario & Supply PortfolioSupply Portfolio

6262

During December 2009 meeting the IBCC develop several portfolios for the mid-demand & mid-supply portfolio. Common themes included:

• Promote success of Identified Projects and Processes

• Minimize agricultural transfers to meet future needs on the East Slope and West Slope

• Increase conservation• Increase reuse of consumable supplies• Utilize Colorado River System supplies on West

Slope and East Slope

63

• IPPs - 60 to 70 Percent Statewide Success Rate• Conservation - 20 to 25 Percent off of 2008 Demand• 350,000 Acre-Feet from Colorado River System (142kaf for East

Slope and 208kaf for West Slope)• Ag Transfers to Meet Remaining Demands• Reuse of Fully Consumable Water

65

M&I Needs Statewide West Slope North Platte/Rio Grande

M&I Water Needs (AFY) 1,021,000 262,000 11,100SSI Water Needs (AFY) 84,000 45,000 0Oil Shale Water Needs (AFY) 61,000 61,000 0

Total M&I Needs (AFY) 1,166,000 368,000 11,100

StrategiesPassive Conservation 102,000 13,000 1,400IPPs (AFY) 363,000 95,000 3,900Active Conservation (AFY) 119,000 52,000 1,300Landuse (AFY) 35,000 0 35,000 0New Supply Development (AFY) 350,000 208,000 0

Reuse (AFY) 96,000 0 0New Supply Development Sub-Total (AFY) 446,000 208,000 0

Ag Transfer (AFY) 62,000 0 4,400Reuse (AFY) 39,000 0 0

Ag Transfer Sub-Total (AFY) 101,000 0 4,400

Reduction in Irrigated Acres (percent) 8% 7% 1%12% Arkansas17% South Platte

Reduction in Irrigated Acres (acres) 219,000 31,077 182,300 5,60039,400 Arkansas

142,900 South Platte

Colorado River Depletions (MAF) 0.284 MAF (New) 2.918 MAF (Total)NOTE: There may be some discrepancies in totals due to rounding.

16%

East Slope

264,000

748,000

0787,000

66,000

39,000

238,000

97,000

87,000

142,00096,000

58,00039,000

S

SR

PCLA

TR

CA

N

AR

Next StepsNext Steps

Further refinement of Further refinement of mid-demand/mid-mid-demand/mid-supply portfoliossupply portfolios-Can we agree on a portfolio?-Can we agree on a portfolio?

Development of Development of portfolios for other portfolios for other scenariosscenarios-Are there common elements -Are there common elements

between portfolios?between portfolios?

6666

6767

On-Going Technical Support

M&I DemandsM&I Demands

CWCB Staff have gathered comments on CWCB Staff have gathered comments on M&I Demands to 2050 reportM&I Demands to 2050 report

CWCB will respond to comments and CWCB will respond to comments and revise report 2revise report 2ndnd quarter of next year quarter of next year

Report will be included as an appendix to Report will be included as an appendix to statewide update of consumptive and statewide update of consumptive and nonconsumptive needs – October 2010nonconsumptive needs – October 2010

6868

Nonconsumptive Focus Areas Nonconsumptive Focus Areas MappingMapping

CWCB Staff have gathered feedback on CWCB Staff have gathered feedback on reportreport

CWCB will respond to comments and CWCB will respond to comments and revise reportrevise report

Report will be included as a section in the Report will be included as a section in the statewide update of consumptive and statewide update of consumptive and nonconsumptive needs – October 2010nonconsumptive needs – October 2010

6969

Nonconsumptive Projects and Nonconsumptive Projects and MethodsMethods

CWCB will examine past studies:CWCB will examine past studies:– Existing studies and plans by "ISF recommending entities"Existing studies and plans by "ISF recommending entities"– Watershed restoration plans and flood DSS for identified Watershed restoration plans and flood DSS for identified

restoration projectsrestoration projects– Other relevant restoration and quantification studies, plans Other relevant restoration and quantification studies, plans

and processesand processes– Other WSRA funded studies or Basin Roundtable StudiesOther WSRA funded studies or Basin Roundtable Studies

Information will be summarized by focus areaInformation will be summarized by focus areaResults will be included in statewide update of Results will be included in statewide update of consumptive and nonconsumptive needs – October consumptive and nonconsumptive needs – October 20102010

7070

Agricultural shortagesAgricultural shortages

CWCB will update the agricultural shortages CWCB will update the agricultural shortages from SWSI 1 from SWSI 1

CWCB will summarize results of Yampa and CWCB will summarize results of Yampa and Gunnison Agricultural WSRA studiesGunnison Agricultural WSRA studies

CWCB will review information with roundtables CWCB will review information with roundtables 11stst and 2 and 2ndnd quarter 2010 quarter 2010

Information will be included in statewide update Information will be included in statewide update – October 2010– October 2010

CWCB will also review the Alternative CWCB will also review the Alternative Agricultural Transfer Methods Grant ProjectsAgricultural Transfer Methods Grant Projects

7171

Consumptive Gap AnalysisConsumptive Gap Analysis

CWCB will update M&I gap analysis from SWSI CWCB will update M&I gap analysis from SWSI 1 using updated IPP database1 using updated IPP database

CWCB will update agricultural shortages CWCB will update agricultural shortages statewide statewide

CWCB will review information with roundtables CWCB will review information with roundtables 11stst and 2 and 2ndnd quarter 2010 quarter 2010

Information will be included in report updating Information will be included in report updating consumptive and nonconsumptive needs consumptive and nonconsumptive needs statewide – October 2010statewide – October 2010

7272

Report summarizing needs Report summarizing needs assessments (October, 2010)assessments (October, 2010)

CWCB will provide update of statewide CWCB will provide update of statewide consumptive and nonconsumptive needs based consumptive and nonconsumptive needs based on recent reports and Basin Roundtable Needs on recent reports and Basin Roundtable Needs Assessment effortsAssessment efforts

Target completion date of report is October 2010Target completion date of report is October 2010

7373

7474

QuestionsQuestionsEric HecoxEric Hecox

[email protected]@state.co.us


Where do we go from here?Where do we go from here?By Mike ShimminBy Mike Shimmin

Mid-range gap in 2050 = 360,000 af/yrMid-range gap in 2050 = 360,000 af/yr

Virtually no new water left to develop in Virtually no new water left to develop in SPRSPR

What options are there to meet gap?What options are there to meet gap?

Basic optionsBasic options

Work to get the IPPs builtWork to get the IPPs built

Implement more M & I conservation Implement more M & I conservation measures measures

Develop new water rights from the Develop new water rights from the Colorado RiverColorado River

Large-scale dry-up of irrigated agriculture Large-scale dry-up of irrigated agriculture (25-44%)(25-44%)

Comparative Analysis of Comparative Analysis of South Platte Agricultural South Platte Agricultural

Economics Economics

By Bill JerkeBy Bill Jerke

#8 Larimer$101million

#1 Weld$1,100million

#3 Morgan$448million

#4 Logan$380million

#2 Yuma$543million

#9 Adams$448million

#5 Kit Carson$206million

#7 Otero$106million

#6 Prowers$183million

#10 Alamosa$95million

70% of StateAg Production

Top 10AgriculturalProductionCounties

Agricultural Products Sold: By County Agricultural Products Sold: By County

In the worst drought in 300 years, 2002, In the worst drought in 300 years, 2002, Colorado produced 4.5 billion dollars in Colorado produced 4.5 billion dollars in Agricultural products sold. Agricultural products sold.

Seven of the top ten producing counties in Seven of the top ten producing counties in Colorado were in the South Platte Basin. Colorado were in the South Platte Basin.

Irrigated Acres by BasinIrrigated Acres by Basin

South Platte: 1,027,000 South Platte: 1,027,000 Greater Colorado Combined: 875,000Greater Colorado Combined: 875,000Rio Grande: 633,000Rio Grande: 633,000Arkansas: 405,000Arkansas: 405,000North Platte: 116,000North Platte: 116,000

These numbers come from the SWSI Study. I have taken the liberty, at These numbers come from the SWSI Study. I have taken the liberty, at great risk to myself, of combining the Colorado River and it’s tributaries. County lines great risk to myself, of combining the Colorado River and it’s tributaries. County lines don’t always follow basin and tributary boundaries. To keep it as easy to follow as don’t always follow basin and tributary boundaries. To keep it as easy to follow as possible combining some systems and areas seemed prudent. possible combining some systems and areas seemed prudent.

The South Platte’s irrigated acreage includes the Republican River The South Platte’s irrigated acreage includes the Republican River because there is no other logical place to put it. because there is no other logical place to put it.

Agricultural Products Sold: By BasinAgricultural Products Sold: By Basin

Basin Dollars PercentBasin Dollars PercentSouth Platte: $3,186,000,000 70%South Platte: $3,186,000,000 70%Greater Colorado Combined: $304,000,000 6%Greater Colorado Combined: $304,000,000 6%Rio Grande: $299,000,000 6% Rio Grande: $299,000,000 6% Arkansas: $692,000,000 15%Arkansas: $692,000,000 15%North Platte: $ 16,000,000 >1%North Platte: $ 16,000,000 >1%

The South Platte sales speak for themselves!The South Platte sales speak for themselves!

Number of Dollars Generated Per Irrigated Number of Dollars Generated Per Irrigated Acre by BasinAcre by Basin

Basins: Products Sold: Irrigated Acres: Dollars Per Acre:

South Platte $3,186,000,000 1,027,000 $3,102

Greater Colorado:

$304,000,000 875,000 $347

Rio Grande: $299,000,000 633,000 $472

Arkansas: $692,000,000 405,000 $1,709

North Platte: $16,000,000 116,000 $138

Acre Feet Diverted By BasinAcre Feet Diverted By Basin

Basin Acre Ft. DivertedBasin Acre Ft. Diverted

South Platte 2,545,000South Platte 2,545,000

Greater Colorado 5,277,000Greater Colorado 5,277,000

Rio Grande 1,619,000Rio Grande 1,619,000

Arkansas 1,770,000Arkansas 1,770,000

North Platte 397,000North Platte 397,000

First RT observationFirst RT observation

Large-scale dry-up of irrigated agriculture Large-scale dry-up of irrigated agriculture has major adverse economic impacts has major adverse economic impacts

Dry-up of ag lands also has major Dry-up of ag lands also has major environmental impacts, since much of the environmental impacts, since much of the SPR environment was created by return SPR environment was created by return flows from irrigationflows from irrigation

This is not a good option for the basin (or This is not a good option for the basin (or the state)the state)

Second RT observationSecond RT observation

Success of IPPs is important to meeting Success of IPPs is important to meeting the gapthe gap

To the extent they are not successful, To the extent they are not successful, other options will have to take their place other options will have to take their place (ag dry-up seems to be the most likely (ag dry-up seems to be the most likely candidate)candidate)

Third RT observationThird RT observation

Additional water conservation efforts are Additional water conservation efforts are crucial, but will not alone be enoughcrucial, but will not alone be enough

Dec. IBCC meeting seemed to generate Dec. IBCC meeting seemed to generate some consensus that 30% savings from some consensus that 30% savings from 2000 usage rates needs to (and can) be 2000 usage rates needs to (and can) be achieved for new developmentachieved for new development

This could yield about 87,000 af/yr (30% of This could yield about 87,000 af/yr (30% of 290,000 af new mid-range demand)290,000 af new mid-range demand)

Fourth RT observationFourth RT observation

We need to develop whatever available We need to develop whatever available water remains in the Colorado River basinwater remains in the Colorado River basin

Studies underway to calculate how much Studies underway to calculate how much there isthere is

To achieve this, we need cooperation and To achieve this, we need cooperation and water sharing with the West Slopewater sharing with the West Slope

Fourth RT observation Fourth RT observation (continued)(continued)

This will result only if we have ongoing This will result only if we have ongoing dialogue and some mechanism for dialogue and some mechanism for cooperationcooperation

IBCC and Roundtables are meeting this IBCC and Roundtables are meeting this needneed

Fifth RT observationFifth RT observation

We need a closer connection and better We need a closer connection and better coordination between land use planning coordination between land use planning and water supply planningand water supply planning

This should happen at the local gov’t levelThis should happen at the local gov’t level

RT needs your input and helpRT needs your input and help

Thoughts and reactions to our Thoughts and reactions to our observations?observations?

New ideas?New ideas?

Support for state funding of IBCC and Support for state funding of IBCC and Roundtable processRoundtable process

End of PresentationEnd of Presentation

COLORADO WATER for the 21 ST CENTURY ACT PROGRESS UPDATE From THE SOUTH PLATTE BASIN ROUNDTABLE...

Documents

Transcript of COLORADO WATER for the 21 ST CENTURY ACT PROGRESS UPDATE From THE SOUTH PLATTE BASIN ROUNDTABLE...