Statewide Water Supply Initiative

1

Statewide Water Supply Initiative

Gunnison Water WorkshopJuly 29, 2005

2

SWSI goals as authorized by Legislature (May 2003):

• Examine all aspects of Colorado water use over the next 30 years

• Evaluate water supply and water management alternatives in each river basin

• Formulate strategies and build consensus on alternatives to meet future water needs

3

Colorado’s Eight Major Basins

Yampa/White

North Platte

Colorado

South Platte

Arkansas

Rio Grande

Gunnison

San Juan/Dolores

4

Major Findings

5

1. Significant Increases in Colorado’s Population will Intensify Competition for Water

6

Population Projections by Basin

Basin 2000 2030 Increase in Population

Percent Change

2000-2030

Annual Growth

Rate

Arkansas 835,130 1,293,000 457,900 55% 1.5%

Colorado 248,000 492,600 244,600 99% 2.3%

San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel

90,900 171,600 80,700 89% 2.1%

Gunnison 88,600 161,500 72,900 82% 2.0%

North Platte 1,600 2,000 400 25% 0.7%

Rio Grande 46,400 62,700 16,300 35% 1.0%

South Platte 2,985,600 4,911,600 1,926,000 65% 1.7%

Yampa / White / Green 39,300 61,400 22,100 56% 1.5%

Total 4,335,500 7,156,400 2,820,900 65% 1.7%

Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section

7

Statewide Agricultural Demands

Basin 2000

Irrigated Acres

Irrigation Water

Requirement (AF/Year)

Water Supply Limited

Consumptive Use (AF/Year)

Gross Diversions

(AF/ Year)

Arkansas * 405,000 748,000 619,000 1,770,000

Colorado 238,000 366,000 319,000 1,764,000

Dolores/San Juan/ San Miguel

255,000 370,000 294,000 953,000

Gunnison 264,000 473,000 396,000 1,705,000

North Platte 116,000 96,000 96,000 397,000

Rio Grande 633,000 1,108,000 776,000 1,660,000

South Platte 1,027,000 1,798,000 1,541,000 2,606,000

Yampa/White/Green 118,000 138,000 123,000 642,000

TOTAL 3,056,000 5,097,000 4,164,000 11,497,000

8

2. Projects and Processes that Local M&I Providers are Implementing or Planning to Implement Have the Ability to Meet 80 Percent of Colorado's M&I Water Needs Through 2030

80% of Demand (511,000 AF) Met Through

2030

20% Gap (119,000 AF)

9

Statewide Gross M&I 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 80,500 17,500

Colorado 74,100 7,800 136,000 61,900 58,700 3,200

San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel 23,600 2,400 42,400 18,800 13,900 4,900

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 1,182,100 409,700 319,100 90,600

Yampa / White / Green 29,400 900 51,700 22,300 22,300 —

TOTAL 1,194,900 101,900 1,824,900 630,000 511,400 118,600

10

3. If Identified M&I Projects and Processes Are Not Successfully Implemented, Colorado Could See a Significantly Greater Reduction in Irrigated Agricultural Lands

511,800

383,900

255,900

118,200

246,100

374,100

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 25% 50%

Uncertainty in Identified Projects & Processes

Per

cen

t o

f In

crea

sed

M&

I Dem

and

Gap

IP&P

511,800

383,900

255,900

118,200

246,100

374,100

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 25% 50%

Uncertainty in Identified Projects & Processes

Per

cen

t o

f In

crea

sed

M&

I Dem

and

Gap

IP&P

11

Potential Changes in Irrigated Acres

Source: Colorado's Decision Support Systems and Basin Roundtable/Basin Advisor input.

South Platte

ArkansasRio Grande

Dolores/San Juan/San Miguel

Gunnison

Colorado

Yampa/White/Green North

Platte39,000 acres39,000 acres

2,600 acres2,600 acresor or

No changeNo change

133,000 to 226,000 acres133,000 to 226,000 acres

8,000 to 16,000 acres8,000 to 16,000 acres

2,500 to 10,000 acres2,500 to 10,000 acres23,000 to 72,000 acres23,000 to 72,000 acres

2,400 acres2,400 acres


60,000 60,000 to to

100,000 100,000 acresacres

South Platte

ArkansasRio Grande

Dolores/San Juan/San Miguel

Gunnison

Colorado

Yampa/White/Green North

Platte39,000 acres39,000 acres


No changeNo change

133,000 to 226,000 acres133,000 to 226,000 acres

8,000 to 16,000 acres8,000 to 16,000 acres

2,500 to 10,000 acres2,500 to 10,000 acres23,000 to 72,000 acres23,000 to 72,000 acres

2,400 acres2,400 acres


60,000 60,000 to to

100,000 100,000 acresacres

12

4. Supplies are not necessarily where/when demands are

• Localized shortages exist– Headwaters areas– Most agricultural users– Highly over-appropriated areas of South Platte and

Arkansas– Areas where physical availability is limited

• Compact entitlements are not fully utilized in some basins

13

1,530,000

560,000

310,000

4,500,000

510,000

1,780,000 320,000

110,000 400,000

164,000

YAMPAYAMPA

WHITEWHITE

COLORADOCOLORADO

GUNNISON

GUNNISONDO

LOR

ESD

OLO

RES SA

N JU

AN

SAN

JUA

N

ARKANSASARKANSAS

SOUTH PLATTESOUTH PLATTE

N. N. PLATTEPLATTE

LARAMIELARAMIE

RIO GRANDE

RIO GRANDEWEST SLOPEWEST SLOPEPopulation:467,000

Irrigated Acres:880,000

EAST SLOPEEAST SLOPEPopulation:3,869,000

Irrigated Acres:2,270,000

2000 Population, Irrigated Acres and Flows

14

Yampa/White/GreenYampa/White/Green

North North PlattePlatte

South PlatteSouth Platte

ColoradoColorado

GunnisonGunnison

Dolores/ Dolores/ San Juan/ San Juan/ San MiguelSan Miguel

Rio GrandeRio Grande

ArkansasArkansas

107,600 AF107,600 AF

10,300 AF10,300 AF

Identified Identified ProjectsProjects

404,300 AF404,300 AF

Gap Gap 107,800 AF107,800 AF

2030 M&I Water Demands and Gaps

15

High and Low Estimates of 2030 State of Colorado’s Share of Colorado River Compact Depletions

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2030 HighDemand

2030 LowDemand

MA

F/y

ea

r

Multi-basin Project

Future Exports

Future West SlopeDepletions

CRSP Evpaoration

Current Exports

Current West SlopeDepletions

Colorado’s Compact Entitlement

BOR Hydrologic Determination

16

Actual and Projected Lake Powell Storage Under Modified Release Scenario 2000 - 2004

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

Jan-00 Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04

Sto

rag

e in

AF

Actual Storage Storage Under Modified Releases Reservoir Capacity

Reservoir Capacity = 27 MAF

10 Year Progressive Delivery of 102 MAF

10 Year Progressive Delivery of 82 MAF

16.8 MAF

17

5. Conflicts over use of groundwater are increasing

• Groundwater use is affected by both legal and physical constraints

• Increased reliance on nonrenewable, non-tributary groundwater for permanent water supply raises serious reliability and sustainability concerns– South Metro area– Northern El Paso County

• San Luis Valley using unsustainable amounts• Administration of Arkansas and South Platte

alluvial groundwater

18

6. In-basin Solutions Can Help Resolve Gaps Between M&I Supply and Demand, but there will be Tradeoffs and Impacts on Other Uses

• Adequate in-basin options are available to meet in basin needs in each basin– Conservation– Reuse– Agricultural transfers– New storage

• Multiple solutions will be needed• Multi-purpose projects will likely be the most

successful

19

7. Water Conservation Will Be Relied On as a Major Tool for Meeting Future M&I Demands, but Conservation Alone Cannot Meet All of Colorado's Future Needs

• System reliability depends on ability to further reduce water use in times of drought

• Additional conservation measures are part of most providers’ IP& P’s

• Conservation does not fully address reliability and sustainability concerns

• Concerns raised regarding impacts of additional conservation on downstream supply availability

20

Estimated Total Potential Additional Water Conservation Savings for M&I and Self-Supplied Industrial Uses from 2000 to 2030

Dolores/ S

an Ju

an

Level V

Level IV

Level III

Level II

Current

Level 1

Arkansa

sColorad

o

Gunnison

North Plat

teRio G

rande

Yampa /

White

South Platte

50

40

30

20

10

0

Perc

ent R

educ

tion

from

203

0 B

asel

ine

21

8. Without a Mechanism to Fund Environmental and Recreational Enhancement, Conflicts Among Interests Will Likely Intensify

• These uses support tourism, provide benefits to our citizens and are important industry

• Conflicts over these needs and water development arise, driving up costs and delaying implementation

22

9. The Ability of Smaller, Rural Water Providers and Agricultural Water Users to Adequately Address Their Existing and Future Water Needs is Significantly Limited by Their Financial Capabilities

• These users often do not have tax or revenue base to pay costs

• There was a statewide expressed need for financial assistance

23

10. Beyond 2030, Growing Demands May Require More Aggressive Solutions

• The ability to meet future demands with in-basin supplies will be a greater challenge

• Many large providers at or near build-out, smaller providers will play a more dominant role

• Greater need for increased coordination intra- and inter-basin

24

RecommendationsNext Steps

25

Key Recommendations

• Ongoing dialogue among all water interests is needed

• Track and support the identified projects and processes

• Develop a program to evaluate, quantify, and prioritize environmental and recreational water enhancement goals

• Work toward consensus recommendations on funding mechanisms for environmental and recreational enhancements

26

Key Recommendations (continued)

• Create a common understanding of future water supplies

• Develop implementation plans toward meeting future needs

• Assess potential new State roles in implementing solutions

• Develop requirements for standardized annual M&I water use data reporting

27

SWSI Phase 2Specific Topics for Further Evaluation

• Meeting the 20% M&I gap• Water efficiency (M&I and agricultural)• Alternative Agricultural Transfers to Permanent

Dry-up (rotating fallowing, interruptible agreements)

• Quantification and prioritization of environmental and recreational needs

• Identify potential multi-use projects• Funding alternatives

Goal is to develop consensus and recommendations and highlight benefits and limitations

28

CWCB November 2004Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI)

Mission StatementThe 20% M&I Gap, Agricultural Shortages and

Environmental and Recreational Enhancements

Foster cooperation among water suppliers and citizens in every water basin to examine and implement options to fill the gap between ongoing water planning and future

water needs.

29

Discussion of Workgroup Products

Water Efficiency

Alternatives to Permanent Ag

Dry-up

Quantify Recreation and Environmental

Need

Addressing the Gap including Alternatives

Project ConceptsMulti-Use Projects

Funding

Technical Roundtables Input to CWCB

BRT 6

30

Example Portfolios to Meet M&I Gap and address Agricultural Shortages and Environmental and Recreational Uses

Reuse

Ag Efficiency

M&I Conservation (Level 5)

M&I Conservation (level 3)

Trans-basin Diversions

New Storage

Ag Transfer

The options above can be assembled into portfolios to provide for meeting M&I, agricultural, environmental and recreational needs

31

SWSI Interbasin Compact Interface

PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Summary of Proposed SWSI Phase 2 and Inter-Basin Compact Schedule

2005 2006JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

TRT Meetings and Work Products TRT Meetings and Work Products (Water Eff., Ag. Transfer, Rec/Env.)

TRT - Addressing the Gap TRT Meetings (Addressing the Gap) Coordinate w/IBCRTs

Basin Roundtable Meeting #6 BRT6

Organize IBC Roundtables (IBCRT) Organize IBCRTs and Develop Guiding Documents

Inter-Basin Compact (IBC) Committee Convene/Develop Charter (7/1/06 Statutory Deadline)Committee Report to Legislature ▲ 3/1/06 ▲ 10/31/06

Conduct IBCRT Activities/Negotiations Conduct IBCRT Activities

CWCB Board Meetings ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

4/28/2005

32

Additional Information

Questions

www.cwcb.state.co.us

[email protected]