THE PROJECT Pipeline (1) (2) (5) Storage (3) Flow and Storage (14) Power (6) Users (4)
PIPELINE (5) • The Project
578 mile underground pipeline originating in the Green River Flaming Gorge system in Wyoming and ending near Pueblo Colorado
Follows I-80 (a federally designated energy corridor) through the majority of Wyoming and Existing ROW through most of Colorado
ROUTING (5) • The Project o Pipeline o Pipeline
• The Project
DIVERSION POINTS (1)
Legal filing on the Green River and Flaming Gorge Reservoir/Priority Request for Water Supply Contract
o Pipeline
• The Project
Federal Register Notice of filing on Flaming Gorge with the Bureau of Reclamation 8/22/07
Filing on the Green River with Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 12/07
DIVERSION POINTS (1) o Pipeline
• The Project
WATER DIVERTED (2)
Two separate priorities established for a new water supply
Withdrawal rates from either diversion are adjustable based on changes in flow and storage in the Green River and Flaming Gorge Reservoir respectively Anticipated draw during wet year: ~250,000 ac-ft.
Anticipated draw during average year: ~165,000 ac-ft.
Anticipated draw during dry year: ~120,000 ac-ft.
o Pipeline
• The Project
STORAGE (3)
Flaming Gorge 3.8 MAF existing reservoir
Lake Hattie Existing 100,000 AF reservoir
65,000 AF of storage available
Cactus Hill Proposed 178,000 AF reservoir
T-Cross Ranch (Marlborough Municipal Water District) Proposed 30,000 AF reservoir
Additional Storage should be added to meet policy objectives and risk management
• The Project
PROPOSED STORAGE o Storage
• The Project
FLOW & STORAGE (14) GLOBAL WARMING MODELS INDICATE GREEN RIVER BASIN TO BE
WETTER THAN AVERAGE
[T]here are differences between the two basins and augmentation potential exists. Particularly in years when the Green River flows are relatively higher than the Colorado River flows (green bars in the Figure)… In summary, there are 17 out of the 33 shown when the Green is wetter than the Colorado.
• The Project
POWER (6)
Energy required for Delivery ~125,000 kW annually
Total for 9 Pump stations from FG/GR to Pueblo
~$70 million/year operational costs
Delivery of 200,000 ac-ft. ~$.95 to $1.07 per 1000 gallons of water Cost per 1000 gallons.
Energy Generated In line
~70,000 kW
Pumped Storage Proposed 500,000 to 1,000,000 kW
• The Project
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY(6) • The Project
USERS (4)
Letters of Interest Totaling 358,500 ac-ft. as of Jan 2010 Municipal, industrial and Ag
interest
In both Wyoming to Colorado
Anticipate more interest and hard contracts closer to final permit
• The Project
USERS MAP (4) • The Project
THE COSTS Project (7)
Ratepayers (8)
PROJECT FINANCING (7)
Project will follow a PFI/PPP model Issued RFP for Design/Build/Finance/Operate
concessionaire
$5MM plus invested to date No taxpayer dollars
$250MM dollar Previous Term Sheet from a well-known global institutional investor to invest in pipeline construction
• The Costs
RATEPAYER COSTS (8)
The anticipated capital cost to ratepayers is $42 to $51 per 1000 gallons $3 B Project cost
Cost plus model to users
Compared to the most recent Prairie Waters Project (Aurora) $760 MM Project
Initial yield of 10,000 ac-ft. annually $233 per 1000 gallons
• The Costs
CURRENT STANDING Due Diligence (9)
Permitting (10)
DUE DILIGENCE (9)
Sampling of the several hundred Legal/Financial/Technical/Environmental & Research due diligence documents
• Current Standing
BOYLE REPORT
This initial feasibility assessment of the RWSP focuses on the following considerations: Water Availability – historic flows and the volumes of water that might potentially be available to the
RWSP considering Colorado River Compact entitlements to Colorado and other states and emerging water management strategies for Flaming Gorge Reservoir
Water Demands – the types and general magnitude of current and future demands that might be served by the project using the State of Colorado’s Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) as the primary data source
Preliminary Layouts of RWSP infrastructure – the types of diversion, conveyance and delivery facilities that would be needed
General Environmental Considerations – a comparison of the Green River water supply versus other potential water sources, endangered species recovery in relation to the Flaming Gorge Reservoir Environmental Impact Study, and other special species, habitat or land use.
Schedule – the likely timeframes required for future RWSP planning, design, permitting and construction activities
o Due Diligence
• Current Standing
BOYLE REPORT o Due Diligence
• Current Standing
BOYLE REPORT o Due Diligence
• Current Standing
• Risk ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RECORD OF DECISION FEB. 2006 o Due Diligence
• Current Standing
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WATER AVAILABILITY ESTIMATE o Due Diligence
• Current Standing
“Reclamation has completed an analysis of the amount of water that may be available for diversion and contracting from Flaming Gorge Reservoir. The analysis presumes that Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah will continue to develop their water supplies, continued compliance with the flow recommendations adopted in the 2006 Flaming Gorge Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, and continued use of the active storage pool, which protects the power pool.” -3/20/07
PERMITTING (10)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“COE”) initiated formal EIS/NEPA process (03/09) ENSR, AECOM,
Submitted (to COE) formal Letters of Interest totaling 358,000 acre feet from 17 entities representing municipal, agricultural and private users in Colorado and Wyoming (01/10)
COE developing Purpose and Need, finalized public scoping, initiated socio-economic studies and preliminary water modeling (02/10)
Initiated preliminary permit application to FERC for permitting hydropower production and water supply (09-11)
• Current Standing
RISK QUESTIONS Compact Curtailment (11)
Water Rights (12)
Concerns and Mitigation (13)
Administration will be particularly important should it be necessary for Colorado water rights to be curtailed to supply the Lower Basin. Colorado law will determine what Colorado water will be curtailed in the event of a Compact “call”.
Under the Colorado River Compact, there will be no “call” unless the Upper Basin fails to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet at Lee Ferry during any consecutive 10-year period. Since the Compact was adopted, this never has happened. The ability to adjust over a 10-year period, substantial under-use of Wyoming’s Compact share, the role of Lake Powell, and the agreement among the Upper and Lower Basin states to coordinate the operation of Lakes Powell and Mead so as to avoid curtailment of uses in the Upper Basin all militate against there being a Compact “call”.
Should there, nonetheless, be an under delivery to the Lower Basin over a 10-year period, the Upper Basin Compact specifies how the shortfall shall be met. If an Upper Basin state has taken more than its share of water, that state first must replace its overdraft. New Mexico’s Compact apportionment is almost fully used now; Utah will increase its use substantially with the Lake Powell pipeline. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that curtailment would operate first against water rights in New Mexico and Utah.
Should further curtailment be necessary, each state will bear part of the obligation, based upon its water use from the Colorado River system during the preceding year. This situation would require Colorado to determine which of its water rights, including the Green River project, must be curtailed. Water rights perfected before November 24, 1922 are excluded.
COMPACT CURTAILMENT (11) • Risk
“... for the purposes, among others, of regulating the flow of the Colorado River, storing water for beneficial consumptive use, making it possible for the States of the Upper Basin to utilize, consistently with the provisions of the Colorado River Compact, the apportionments made to and among them in the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, respectively, providing for the reclamation of arid and semiarid land, for the control of floods, and for the generation of hydroelectric power, as an incident of the foregoing purposes …” (Reclamation 2004).
WATER RIGHTS (12) • Risk
Under the Upper Colorado River Compact, water diverted in one state and put to beneficial use in another is charged against the Compact allocation of the state of use.
Based upon an analysis of historical flows, the Bureau of Reclamation has determined that the Upper Basin is entitled to slightly over 6 million acre-feet of water each year. Colorado’s apportionment of the amount available is 51.75 %.
Other states have proceeded to develop their remaining Compact apportionments. New Mexico is pursuing the Navajo – Gallup project pursuant to the Bureau’s determination. Utah is proceeding with the Lake Powell pipeline to St. George. These developments will nearly consume both states’ Compact apportionments, but they have chosen to move forward to meet their water needs.
As part of the on-going SWSI process, the Colorado Water Conservation Board has assessed the amount of water available to Colorado under its Compact share. The CWCB study determined that even after development between now and 2030, Colorado will have an undeveloped share of 302,000 – 654,000 acre-feet available.
The Bureau of Reclamation has modeled the amount of water available to be contracted to RWSP. The Bureau assumed that the Upper Basin states would develop new projects they have identified, that flows below Flaming Gorge Reservoir would be maintained at the levels established by a recent Record of Decision as needed to protect endangered fish, and that reservoir water levels would be maintained as needed to generate electricity.
WATER RIGHTS (12) • Risk
Environmental Impacts to Green River
Impacts to Flaming Gorge
Routing
Non-Native Species Transfer
Water Quality
Recreation Impacts to non-native fly fisheries
Reservoir levels
Impacts to non-native salmon spawn
Socio-Economic West Slope Interests
Project Administration
Agricultural Needs
Wyoming Impact Issues
Tourism
Development
Recreation
CONCERNS & MITIGATION (13) • Risk
Flaming Gorge Pipeline Lake Powell Pipeline
570+ Mile Pipeline
Diversion Point in Wyoming From Legal Colorado River
Tributary
For use in WY and CO
Diverting ~200,000 ac-ft.
Anticipate FERC as lead EIS agency
130+ Mile Pipeline
Diversion Point in Arizona From Legal Colorado River
Tributary
For use in UT
Diverting ~100,000 ac-ft.
FERC lead EIS agency based on hydropower elements
There are those who suggest that Colorado [and Wyoming] should not develop [their] remaining Compact entitlement because further development might precipitate a Compact call. Other states, however, are proceeding. If Colorado [and Wyoming] hesitates, [they] subsidize development by [their] sister states, while depriving [themselves] of needed water. In most if not all years, water is available for Colorado [and Wyoming’s] use. It would be far better to develop [their] entitlement, then to manage the resource in dry years so as to avoid a Compact call than to forego the water.
SIMILAR PROJECTS
Top Related