COLORADO WATER for the 21 ST CENTURY ACT PROGRESS UPDATE From THE SOUTH PLATTE BASIN ROUNDTABLE March 25, 2010 Sterling, CO

2 Colorado's Water Supply Future South Platte Basin Roundtable Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment Bob Streeter

3

4

5

6 Why are we developing an NCNA? Yes, it’s required by statute, but more importantly… The NCNA will provide an objective, science-based set of tools for BRTs and other stakeholders. –Priority Streams –Flow Quantification To be used to make informed decisions about future water supply management. For example: –What are the most important streams and rivers for our environment and recreation? –How much water would we need to sustain those values? –What tools and strategies can we use? –How can we develop new water supplies that avoid impacts or provide multi-purpose benefits to priority streams and wetlands?

7 Statewide Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment Methodology Establish Priorities Establish Priorities QUANTIFICATION Build Upon Attributes Build Upon Attributes Areas Where BRTs Choose to Conduct Quantification Areas Where BRTs Choose to Conduct Quantification Pilot Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool(s) Pilot Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool(s) PRIORITIES Site-Specific Quantification Site-Specific Quantification IMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATION

8 Products GIS coverages representing Colorado’s important environmental and recreational attributes Map of Basin Roundtable prioritized areas and reaches Results of flow evaluation tools and site-specific instream flow pilot studies Identification of flow and non-flow related resource management options

9 Initial Attributes Considered CWCB Instream Flow Rights CWCB Natural Lake Levels CWCB water rights where water availability had a role in appropriation Audubon important bird areas CDPHE WQCD 303(d) listed segments Rare Riparian Wetland Vascular Plants Significant Riparian/Wetland Communities Boreal Toad Critical Habitat Ducks Unlimited Projects Greenback Cutthroat Trout Waterfowl Hunting/Habitat Parcels Ducks Unlimited Focus Areas White Water Parks Wild and Scenic Reaches Gold Medal Trout Streams Gold Medal Trout Lakes Recreational In-Channel Diversions Rafting and Kayak reaches (flatwater and whitewater) High Recreation Corridors Nationwide Rivers Inventory Additional Wilderness Area Waters Plains and Northern Leopard Frog Preble’s Jumping Mouse River Otter Yellow Mud Turtle Common Garter Snake Other Threatened and Endangered Fish Species

10 South Platte Basin Attribute Categorization EnvironmentalEnvironmental Special Value Waters State Endangered, Threatened and Species of Concern Rare Plants and Significant Plant Communities RecreationalRecreational ImportantFishing Whitewater and Flatwater Boating Waterfowl Habitat and Recreation High Recreation Corridors

11

Why are we here? 1. PLAN Upfront –Plan for multi-objective projects upfront when an area includes nonconsumptive needs –Avoid long National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and litigation processes (be a useful guide for water supply planning up front), –Avoiding Endangered Species Act “train wrecks” (help plan to prevent species of special concern from becoming federally listed), –Point to win/win opportunities for future multi-objective projects, and –Help identify where future conflicts may occur 2. Cultural, Ethical, and Aesthetic Values 3. Economics 12

Next Steps Quantification of water needs Implementation of projects to sustain and improve recreational and environmental attributes 13

14

15 Colorado's Water Supply Future South Platte Basin Roundtable Consumptive Needs Assessment Joe Frank

Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act Consumptive Needs Assessment Basin Roundtables –“Develop a basin-wide consumptive and non- consumptive water supply needs assessment.” Consumptive Needs: Municipal, industrial and agricultural Non-consumptive Needs: Environmental and recreational

South Platte Basin Roundtable Three-Part Approach to Consumptive Needs Assessment: Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI), Phase 1. Adopted as an interim needs assessment 2.Detailed analysis of five key areas 3.Assessments based on 2050 demands

Map of the Roundtable

Part 1: Statewide Water Supply Initiative, Phase 1 Findings based on 2030 demands: –Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demands projected to increase statewide by 630,000 acre-feet (AF). –M&I demands in the South Platte Basin Roundtable area were projected to increase by 200,000 AF. –Optimistic projections by local M&I providers indicate the ability to meet 80% of the increased demand.

Findings, cont’d –The gap or shortage indentified for 2030: Statewide: 118,000 AF South Platte Basin Roundtable: 28,000 AF Overall South Platte: 90,600 AF Note: One acre-foot is a volume of water one foot deep over one acre of area. One acre-foot is also 325,851 gallons. Part 1: Statewide Water Supply Initiative, Phase 1

2030 Agricultural Demands for the South Platte Basin: Irrigated Land1,027,000 acres Water Deficit257,000 ac-ft* Water Deficit257,000 ac-ft* Irrigated Land850,000 acres Water Deficit210,000 ac-ft* Note that the total irrigated acres are projected to decrease by * Consumptive use numbers.

Part 2: Five Key Areas The consumptive needs assessment involves the detailed analysis of Five Key Areas: 1.Competition for the same water supply 1.Competition for the same water supply 2. Identification of any unappropriated water 3. Current and historical river administration 4. Increasing use of wholly consumable effluent 5. Water conservation plans by providers

Part 2: Five Key Areas Conclusions 1.There is significant competition for the same water supplies including competition from the Denver Metro Area 2.There is very little un-appropriated water available 3.There will be increased frequency and duration of senior calls on the river 4.Increase reuse of consumable effluent will result in less water in the South Platte River 5.Water conservation will help reduce future water demands but will not alone be sufficient to meet future demands

Part 3: Consumptive Needs Assessment Approach to the Needs Assessment: –Projection of 2050 Agricultural Demands –2050 Municipal and Industrial Demands Projected Statewide –Available Water Supply –Calculation of the 2050 Projected Gap or Shortage

Part 3: Consumptive Needs Assessment 2030 Projected Agricultural Demands: –2005 irrigated acres were used as a base line for projecting future Agricultural water needs. –Due to the high decree of uncertainty in estimating the 2050 irrigated acreage the decision was made by the Roundtable to use updated 2030 acreage estimates from SWSI Phase 1.

2030 Projected Agricultural Demands, cont’d 2005: Irrigated Land 840,000 acres Water Deficit210,000 AF* Water Deficit210,000 AF* 2030: Irrigated Land 684, ,000 acres Water Deficit171, ,000 AF* Water Deficit171, ,000 AF* The current and projected Agricultural water shortage in the overall basin: –200,000 acre-feet of consumptive use* –364,000 acre-feet of actual diversion –Note: That the irrigated acres have decreased 70,000 acres from 2001 to 2005.

Part 3: Consumptive Needs Assessment Municipal and Industrial Projections 2050 Population Estimates LocationYear/RangePopulation Statewide2005 4,782,000 4,782, Low 8,664,000 8,664, Med 9,331,000 9,331, High 10,327,000 Denver Metro 20052,359, Low 4,052, Med 4,289, High 4,728,000

2050 Population Estimates, cont’d LocationYear/RangePopulation South Platte Basin , ,000 Roundtable 2050 Low 1,779, Med 1,902, High 2,079,000 Logan, Morgan, ,100 Sedgwick, 2050 Low 97,500 Washington 2050 Med 103,600 Counties 2050 High 113,500 Data Source: Colorado Water Conservation Board “State of Colorado 2050 Municipal and Industrial Water Use Projections.”

Part 3: Consumptive Needs Assessment 2050 M&I Water Demand LocationYear/RangeAcre-Feet Statewide2008 1,200,000 1,200, Low 2,100,000 2,100, Med 2,300,000 2,300, High 2,900,000 Denver Metro , Low 749, Med 795, High 877,000 Note: For the Medium 2050 Demand the State will need another 1,100,000 AF of water.

2050 M&I Water Demand, cont’d LocationYear/RangeAcre-Feet South Platte Basin ,000* 268,000* Roundtable 2050 Low 485, Med 515, High 558,000 Logan, Morgan, ,100 Sedgwick, 2050 Low 49,300 Washington 2050 Med 51,200 Counties 2050 High 54,200 *The 2008 demand reflects a 13% decrease from the 2000 demand. This reduction is due to current conservations efforts.

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

SWSI: South Platte Basin and Metro 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 Roundtable Major Identified Projects & Processes Identified Projects and Processes (IP&Ps) –Northern Area146,500 AF –Upper Mountain 16,500 AF –Lower River 8,900 AF –High Plains 800 AF –TOTAL172,700 AF

South Platte Basin Roundtable Major Identified Projects & Processes Northern Area: Annual Yield Windy Gap Firming30,000 AF Northern Integrated Supply Plan40,000 AF Halligan-Seaman Reservoir Projects20,000 AF TOTAL90,000 AF These projects are currently in the permitting process and do not have the necessary permits to move forward.

Meeting the 2050 M&I Basin Demand South Platte (excludes Denver Metro Area) LowMediumHigh 2050 Demand Current Demand New Demand IP&Ps at 100% Gap Gap Calculation (all values in 1000 ac-ft)

Meeting the 2050 M&I Basin Demand South Platte and Denver Metro Area Combined LowMediumHigh 2050 Demand 1,2341,3101,435 Current Demand New Demand IP&Ps at 100% Gap (100%) Gap Calculation (all values in 1000 ac-ft)

Meeting the 2050 M&I Basin Demand The amount of additional future water supply depends on the rate of success of the IP&P’s and which population scenario happens. The Roundtable looked at supply numbers based on 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% success rate of the IP&P’s.

Mid-Range Hypothetical Example Assume the IP&P’s are 50% successful and assume 2050 medium-range population. –Gap (i.e.: the shortage) to meet in the South Platte Basin Roundtable is 160,000 AF –Gap to meet in Denver Metro area is 233,000 AF (393,000 AF total for South Platte) –The statewide gap at 50/50 is approximately 800,000 AF.

39 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 Needs

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

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

43 Colorado's Water Supply Future State Wide Perspective – Path Forward Eric Hecox

Objectives 1) Current Planning Activities 2) On-Going Technical Support of Needs Assessment 44

45 Current Planning Activities

Draft Reports State of Colorado 2050 Municipal and Industrial Water Use Projections Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment Priorities Mapping Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool Pilot Study for Roaring Fork and Fountain Creek Watersheds and Site-Specific Quantification Pilot Study for Roaring Fork Watershed Evaluation of Water Supply Strategies To access the reports visit:

Key Findings Colorado’s population will nearly double by 2050 requiring between 830,000 and1.7 million acre-feet of additional water to meet M&I needs Environmental and recreational water needs have been identified statewide. Identifying projects and methods to meet those needs will continue to be a priority In order to meet these consumptive and nonconsumptive needs, Colorado will rely on a mix of conservation, agricultural transfers, and new water supply development Meeting Colorado’s consumptive and nonconsumptive needs will require substantial investment. For example, a new water supply project yielding 250,000 acre-feet will cost between $7.5 to $10 billion. This exceeds previous cost projections. 47

48 Existing Supplies IPPs if 100% Successful 2050 Water Needs High 2050 Water Needs Medium 2050 Water Needs Low

49 Existing Supplies IPPs if 50% Successful 2050 Water Needs High 2050 Water Needs Medium 2050 Water Needs Low

50 Existing Supplies IPPs if 50% Successful 2050 Water Needs High 2050 Water Needs Medium 2050 Water Needs Low 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 Process Basic Conclusions

1,403 KAF 100 KAF High Demand Low Supply High Demand Low Supply Mid Demand Mid Supply Mid Demand Mid Supply High Demand High Supply High Demand High Supply Low Demand Low Supply Low Demand Low Supply Low Demand High Supply Low Demand High Supply Mid Demand Low Supply Mid Demand Low Supply Mid Demand High Supply Mid Demand High Supply 1,174 KAF 1,123 KAF 944 KAF 835 KAF 769 KAF 700 KAF 350 KAF Colorado River System SupplyStatewide Demand

Building combinations of strategies or “portfolios” for meeting Colorado’s future water needs. Different mixes of: -- IPPs -- Conservation -- New Supply Development -- Ag Transfers 54

55 Portfolios 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 Methods Portfolio Agricultural Transfers (Traditional and Alternative)  South Platte Basin  Arkansas Basin Green Mountain Yampa 20 to 25 Percent Savings Off of 2008 Water Usage Providers current conservation plans and optimization of existing infrastructure Southern Delivery System, Arkansas Valley Conduit, Wolcott Reservoir, Elkhead Enlargement, Moffat Collection System, Rueter Hess Enlargement, Thornton Northern Project, Prairie Waters, Chatfield Reallocation, Northern Integrated Supply Plan (NISP), Windy Gap Firming, Halligan Enlargement, Seaman Enlargement Flaming Gorge Blue Mesa

Status Quo Scenario & Supply Portfolio 57

IPP - Success rate varied by basin Conservation - 20% reduction from 2000 water usage rates by basin New Supply – Future development of CO River water beyond IPPs will occur for uses on the West Slope Ag Transfer – Remaining East Slope M&I Demands will be met through ag transfers 58 Status Quo Portfolio (Incremental Ag Transfer) Status Quo Portfolio (Incremental Ag Transfer)

59

60

61

Alternative Scenario & Supply Portfolio 62

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

Next Steps Further refinement of mid-demand/mid- supply portfolios -Can we agree on a portfolio? Development of portfolios for other scenarios -Are there common elements between portfolios? 66

67 On-Going Technical Support

M&I Demands CWCB Staff have gathered comments on M&I Demands to 2050 report CWCB will respond to comments and revise report 2 nd quarter of next year Report will be included as an appendix to statewide update of consumptive and nonconsumptive needs – October

Nonconsumptive Focus Areas Mapping CWCB Staff have gathered feedback on report CWCB will respond to comments and revise report Report will be included as a section in the statewide update of consumptive and nonconsumptive needs – October

Nonconsumptive Projects and Methods CWCB will examine past studies: –Existing studies and plans by "ISF recommending entities" –Watershed restoration plans and flood DSS for identified restoration projects –Other relevant restoration and quantification studies, plans and processes –Other WSRA funded studies or Basin Roundtable Studies Information will be summarized by focus area Results will be included in statewide update of consumptive and nonconsumptive needs – October

Agricultural shortages CWCB will update the agricultural shortages from SWSI 1 CWCB will summarize results of Yampa and Gunnison Agricultural WSRA studies CWCB will review information with roundtables 1 st and 2 nd quarter 2010 Information will be included in statewide update – October 2010 CWCB will also review the Alternative Agricultural Transfer Methods Grant Projects 71

Consumptive Gap Analysis CWCB will update M&I gap analysis from SWSI 1 using updated IPP database CWCB will update agricultural shortages statewide CWCB will review information with roundtables 1 st and 2 nd quarter 2010 Information will be included in report updating consumptive and nonconsumptive needs statewide – October

Report summarizing needs assessments (October, 2010) CWCB will provide update of statewide consumptive and nonconsumptive needs based on recent reports and Basin Roundtable Needs Assessment efforts Target completion date of report is October

74 Questions Eric Hecox Colorado's Water Supply Future

Where do we go from here? By Mike Shimmin Mid-range gap in 2050 = 360,000 af/yr Virtually no new water left to develop in SPR What options are there to meet gap?

Basic options Work to get the IPPs built Implement more M & I conservation measures Develop new water rights from the Colorado River Large-scale dry-up of irrigated agriculture (25-44%)

Comparative Analysis of South Platte Agricultural Economics By 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 State Ag Production Top 10 Agricultural Production Counties

Agricultural Products Sold: By County In the worst drought in 300 years, 2002, Colorado produced 4.5 billion dollars in Agricultural products sold. Seven of the top ten producing counties in Colorado were in the South Platte Basin.

Irrigated Acres by Basin South Platte: 1,027,000 Greater Colorado Combined: 875,000 Rio Grande: 633,000 Arkansas: 405,000 North Platte: 116,000 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 don’t always follow basin and tributary boundaries. To keep it as easy to follow as possible combining some systems and areas seemed prudent. The South Platte’s irrigated acreage includes the Republican River because there is no other logical place to put it.

Agricultural Products Sold: By Basin Basin Dollars Percent Basin Dollars Percent South Platte: $3,186,000,000 70% Greater Colorado Combined: $304,000,000 6% Rio Grande: $299,000,000 6% Arkansas: $692,000,000 15% North Platte: $ 16,000,000 >1% The South Platte sales speak for themselves!

Number of Dollars Generated Per Irrigated Acre by Basin Basins:Products Sold:Irrigated Acres:Dollars Per Acre: South Platte$3,186,000,0001,027,000$3,102 Greater Colorado: $304,000,000875,000$347 Rio Grande:$299,000,000633,000$472 Arkansas:$692,000,000405,000$1,709 North Platte:$16,000,000116,000$138

Acre Feet Diverted By Basin Basin Acre Ft. Diverted South Platte 2,545,000 Greater Colorado 5,277,000 Rio Grande 1,619,000 Arkansas 1,770,000 North Platte 397,000

First RT observation Large-scale dry-up of irrigated agriculture has major adverse economic impacts Dry-up of ag lands also has major environmental impacts, since much of the SPR environment was created by return flows from irrigation This is not a good option for the basin (or the state)

Second RT observation Success of IPPs is important to meeting the gap To the extent they are not successful, other options will have to take their place (ag dry-up seems to be the most likely candidate)

Third RT observation Additional water conservation efforts are crucial, but will not alone be enough Dec. IBCC meeting seemed to generate some consensus that 30% savings from 2000 usage rates needs to (and can) be achieved for new development This could yield about 87,000 af/yr (30% of 290,000 af new mid-range demand)

Fourth RT observation We need to develop whatever available water remains in the Colorado River basin Studies underway to calculate how much there is To achieve this, we need cooperation and water sharing with the West Slope

Fourth RT observation (continued) This will result only if we have ongoing dialogue and some mechanism for cooperation IBCC and Roundtables are meeting this need

Fifth RT observation We need a closer connection and better coordination between land use planning and water supply planning This should happen at the local gov’t level

RT needs your input and help Thoughts and reactions to our observations? New ideas? Support for state funding of IBCC and Roundtable process

End of Presentation