Interdisciplinary WaterInterdisciplinary Water Resources Seminar Resources Seminar
GS 592GS 592
Development of New Water ResourcesDevelopment of New Water ResourcesWayne VanderschuereWayne Vanderschuere
Colorado Springs UtilitiesColorado Springs Utilities Four service utility providing safe,
reliable, competitively-priced electric, natural gas, water and wastewater services to 500,000 people in Colorado Springs and surrounding communities Fast growing community with economy
based on high tech, military, education, services, and tourism
2008 Budget: $955 Million Some of the lowest utility rates,
nationally, as compared to peers Multiple J.D. Power awards for customer
satisfaction and systems reliability About 1,800 employees
OutlineOutline
Water System Overview
Water Resource Plan
The Southern Delivery System
Challenges
Water System MapWater System Map
LOCALCollection System
BLUE RIVERCollection System
HOMESTAKECollection System
TWIN LAKESCollection System
FRY-ARKCollection System
CONTINENTALDIVIDE
Colorado Springs
Pueblo
Salida
Denver
FountainCreek
HOMESTAKEPIPELINE
ArkansasRiver
BLUE RIVER PIPELINE
FVAPIPELINE
COLORADO CANALCollection System
RockyFord
Fort Collins
Water SystemWater System
Serves 412,800 people with about 81,000 acre-feet/year or 26.3 Billion Gallons/year Growing @ 2.2%/year
Infrastructure reaches over 3 rivers basins and 9 counties. 25 Storage Reservoirs 28 Storage Tanks 1,780 miles of mains 7 Treatment Facilities
Influenced by activities in Colorado, West, & nationally
Colorado Springs’ water supplyColorado Springs’ water supply On average 70% of water is delivered from Colorado River Basin
Homestake Twin Lakes Blue River Frying Pan-Arkansas Project
Via 3 delivery pipelines Otero Blue River Fountain Valley Authority
Water from Colorado River tributaries Reused to extinction via:
• exchanges for agricultural uses• in our non-potable system
How The System WorksHow The System Works
Distribution System
Customers Customers
DistributionStorage
Transmission Pipeline
Raw WaterPump Station
TerminalStorage
Water TreatmentPlant
Waste WaterCollection
System
GravityInterceptor
Force
Main
Lift Station
Waste WaterTreatment Plant
Arkansas River Basin Systems Discharge to
Stream SystemSl
udge
Lin
e
Land ApplicationSludge Disposal
RegulatoryStorage
MountainCollection
System
Exchange
Exc
han
ge
Non-pot
Pacific Storms & snow
Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan Recommendations from extensive public process, engineering, and economic modeling
Multiple solutions to meet Colorado Springs’ water needs through 2046
All recommendations currently being pursued
New major delivery system needed for 55% of future water supply
8
Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan Conservation
Low per person usage as compared to peers
Aggressive block pricing
Education and incentive programs2001 Single-Family Residential Water Consumption
107122 122 123
135 140 140 144159
182193
203211
230
0
50
100
150
200
250
Gallo
ns
per
Capita
per
Day
(GP
CD
)
Nonpotable water development 13% of water delivered
Averaging about 10.2 million gallons/day
System improvements 23.2 MGD Otero Expansion Project done in 2003 for +13 MGD, 24%
increase for this pipeline Pinello Wells Rehabilitation for 1.8 MGD - 2003 Woodmen Upgrades for 0.8 MGD - 2004 McCleary Wells for 0.6 MGD - 2005 Northgate and Mary Kyer Wells for 1.9 MGD - 2007 Pikeview to Mesa & Highline to Northfield for 4.4 MGD - 2008 Bear Creek Intake for 0.7 MGD - 2008
Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan
System Demand and Delivery CapacitySystem Firm Yield - 2005 Demand Forecasts
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Flo
w (
MG
D)
Delivery Capacity
Revenue Demand
Revenue Demand + 95% CI
Historic Demand
Ote
ro E
xpan
sio
n,
Pin
ello
Wel
ls
Wo
od
men
Sys
tem
McC
lear
y W
ells
Pik
evie
w /
Hig
hlin
e to
No
rth
fiel
d, N
ort
hg
ate
and
Mar
y K
yer
Wel
ls
Bea
r C
reek
Div
.
need date
OutlineOutlineWater System OverviewWater System Overview
Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan
The Southern Delivery System
Purpose and NeedDelivery and storage of water supply
Provide redundancy for ageing infrastructureMaximize existing assets (water rights)
Proposed Southern Proposed Southern Delivery System Delivery System
OptionOption2008 Draft EIS2008 Draft EIS
2009 ROD and Construction starts2009 ROD and Construction starts
2012 Pumps & pipes2012 Pumps & pipes
2012 Water treatment – Phase I2012 Water treatment – Phase I
2014-2017 Jimmy Camp Reservoir2014-2017 Jimmy Camp Reservoir
2020-2030 Williams Creek Res.2020-2030 Williams Creek Res.
Project Cost Project Cost (2006 Dollars )(2006 Dollars )
Phase One Capital Cost: $593 Million Pipeline, pump stations, 50 million gallons a
day water treatment plant, and treated water pipelines
Future Phases Capital Cost: $440 Million Reservoirs and water treatment plant
expansions
NEPA ProcessNEPA ProcessThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal
agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet this requirement, federal agencies prepare a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews and comments on EISs prepared by other federal agencies, maintains a national filing system for all EISs, and assures that its own actions comply with NEPA.
Major Milestones and Schedule Resource Studies, 2006 Alternatives Released, 2007 Draft EIS for public comment, 1st Quarter 2008 Record of Decision, 1st Quarter 2009
Planned Environmental Planned Environmental Impact StudiesImpact Studies
Water System MapWater System Map
LOCALCollection System
BLUE RIVERCollection System
HOMESTAKECollection System
TWIN LAKESCollection System
FRY-ARKCollection System
CONTINENTALDIVIDE
Colorado Springs
Pueblo
Salida
Denver
FountainCreek
HOMESTAKEPIPELINE
ArkansasRiver
BLUE RIVER PIPELINE
FVAPIPELINE
COLORADO CANALCollection System
RockyFord
Proposed Alternative
No Action &
#7 Alternatives
County 1041 ProcessCounty 1041 ProcessIn 1974 the Colorado legislature adopted the
Land Use Act in response to the “rapid growth and development of the state and the resulting demands on its land resources. It was a first designed to
• Protect land resources by some control over “projects of statewide interest”
• Allocation resources among competing uses• Promulgate guidelines • Not prohibit
SDS SummarySDS SummarySDS is a cooperative regional project
• Lowest cost alternative• Environmentally responsible
The Southern Delivery System will NOT:• take another community’s water• impact Pueblo’s Historic Arkansas Riverwalk• “dry up” the Arkansas River through Pueblo• “dry up” lower Arkansas Valley
SummarySummary Water planning risks are significant
Supply side
Demand side
Infrastructure
A Comprehensive water supply plan needsDiversity
Flexibility
Project risks are significantPermitting: Federal and local
Political opposition
Environmental opposition
Financial and rate impactsWater projects are EXPENSIVE!
OutlineOutline
Water System OverviewWater System Overview
Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan
The Southern Delivery SystemThe Southern Delivery System
Challenges
ChallengesChallenges
Demand > Supply = needGrowth in Colorado and the WestGroundwater relianceClimate variability and change
Aging infrastructure
RegulatoryWater quality
ChallengesChallenges
Competing Uses
Watershed & Forest Management
Challenges: the biggestChallenges: the biggest
People!!!!EngineeringScientificBusiness & FinancialLegalRelationships &
communicationsLeaders!
Questions & DiscussionQuestions & DiscussionWayne Vanderschuere
719.668.3811
www.csu.org
www.sdseis.com