Colorado River

Basin Implementation Plan

Colorado River Basin Roundtable

Colorado River

Supporting Diverse Land Use

Environment and

Game

Agriculture

Recreation and Tourism

Municipalities

Grand Junction looking

towards Grand Mesa

Industry and

Energy

Colorado River Can’t Keep

Supplying Other Basins• Colorado Basin already has 100,000 AFY Ag shortage

• SWSI 2010 reported the Colorado basin will lose addl 80,000 acres

• Water Providers vulnerable to drought and compact call

• BOR study indicates shortage of 3.2 Million AFY with current

hydrology (Lake Powell and Mead)

• 64 critical reaches already (headwater streams impaired)

• Uncertain climate future

• Firming and IPP’s and growing into existing water rights will divert

addl 150,000 AFY

• Water Quality Problems in middle and lower basin

• We already contribute 400,000 – 600,000 AFY

Lake Powell Water Elevations

Existing Stresses in Colorado Basin• Headwaters: Low, Flat Flows

– Flows reduced by transmountain diversions

– Ecosystem impacts: degraded habitat for fish, riparian vegetation

– Economic impacts: impediment to growth, tourism

• Middle section: Flows depend on Shoshone Call

– Water quality concerns: Energy, natural gas drilling, saline springs

– Rapid population growth

• Lower section: Flows depend on Cameo, Shoshone

– Salts and selenium leach into river when water percolates through soils

– Less high-mountain water makes river saltier

Colorado Basin Threats, Challenges

and Issues• Compact Calls

• Transbasin diversions

• Endangered Species

• Growth separation of land use and water planning

• Energy

• Shoshone Call

• Loss of agriculture

• Climate change

Salinity Levels in the Colorado River

How can we fill the “Gap”?

Conservation Ag to Urban

Transfers

New Projects

Colorado Basin Population

ProjectionsCounty 2000

Population

2030

Population

Increased

Population

Percent

Change

Percent

Annual

Growth

Rate

Eagle 43,300 86,900 43600 101 2.3

Garfield 43,800 119,900 76,100 274 5.2

Grand 12,900 28,800 15,900 123 2.7

Mesa 116,250 220,600 104,350 190 3.8

Pitkin 15,900 27,200 11,300 71 1.8

Summit 25,700 50,400 24,700 96 2.3

Total 248,000 492,600 244,600 99 2.3

Statewide Irrigated Acres

Statewide Future Irrigated Acres

Basin Irrigated Acres

Nonconsumptive PLT Concerns

• A focus on protecting and improving critical reaches

• Would like to see better models to understand impact to

stream flow from future consumptive and non

consumptive projects

• Protect and improve water quality

• Preserve Recreational Flows

• Protect trout, warm water fish, aquatic environment,

recreational reaches

• Improve Adaptive management process

• Restore native species along Colorado River

• Improve point source and non point source water quality

Agriculture PLT Concerns

• Reduce Agricultural Water Shortages

– Explore opportunities to rehab. existing reservoirs

– Explore Multi-Benefit reservoirs

• Improve land use policy to reduce Ag to municipal

transfers

• Agricultural Production Incentives

• Reduce the potential for Trans-mountain Diversions

• Agricultural Education and involvement

• Efficiency/Preservation/Conservation

Consumptive PLT Concerns

• Need for Multi-Purpose Reservoirs

– Money and regulatory issues are constraints (Fens)

– Enlarge existing and

• Need modeling capabilities

• Water Court concerns (pros and cons)

• Better clarity of Hierarchy of Water Use

• Land Use Connection with Water Use

• Aging Infrastructure and true cost of water

• Protect Main-stem Water Right Operations

• Regional cooperation needed

Policy PLT Concerns

• Would like other PLT’s to guide efforts

• Eliminate inconsistency in Water Right administration

between Divisions

• How to allow donation for in-stream flow without running

the gauntlet

• Set the rules of the game for compact curtailment now

• Establish rainy day fund for compact curtailment

• Make connection between land/water use but not at

expense of local control

• Find balance between local control and State control

• How do you share risk in case of compact curtailment

GAP Analysis

M&I and SSI water supply Gap = 2050 net new water needs – 2050 IPP’s

– 2050 net new water needs = (2050 low/med/high M& I baseline demands

– high passive conservation – current M&I use) + (2050 low/med/High

SSI demands - current SSI use)

– 2050 IPPs = Water Provider Anticipated Yield from: Agricultural

Transfers + Reuse + Growth into Exiting Supplies + Regional

Inbasin Projects + New Transbasin Projects + Firming Inbasin

Water Rights + Firming Transbasin Water Rights

Grand County Region

Grand County Region

Summit Region

Summit Region

State Bridge Region

State Bridge Region

Eagle River Region

Eagle River Region

Eagle River Region

Middle Colorado Region

Middle Colorado Region

Roaring Fork Region

Roaring Fork Region

Roaring Fork Region

Watershed Issues• Ruedi Reservoir

• RICD’s

• Non consumptive Critical Reaches

• Crystal Valley

• PSOP

• Pre 22 water rights

• More regional cooperation is needed

• Roaring Fork River Water Council

• A focus on conservation will increase

• Prepare for Compact Call and Drought

Grand Valley Region

Grand Valley Region