1. INTRABASIN, INTERBASIN AND TRANSMOUNTAIN WATER MOVEMENT TO MEET GROWING WATER DEMAND CASE STUDIES David Merritt, P.E., D.WRE Chief Engineer Colorado River Water Conservation District September 2007

2. What Factors Will Influence Future Development Where’s Colorado’s Water? Assessment of Colorado River Compact and Water Availability Current Water Development Challenges and Strategies for Future Development

3. Colorado’s 4 Major River Basins Colorado Platte Arkansas Rio Grande

4. Where’s the Water? - Precipitation Precipitation falls most heavily in the blue-shaded areas. The darker the color, the more moisture the area receives.

5. Where’s the Water? - Streamflow River flows reflect upstream precipitation and depletions

6. Challenges to Future Colorado River Development How does Colorado develop additional Colorado River water in: – An environmentally acceptable, – Politically acceptable, and – Cost effective manner?

7. Current Water Development Much of the flow of the Colorado River and its tributaries within the State of Colorado are under control of existing diverters An area is “controlled” when there is no water available for new projects within sub-basin in at least average years

8. Realities: The best and most cost effective reservoir sites have already been developed. The easy-to-build trans-mountain diversions have been built. Available surplus Colorado River water is only physically available in the very western reaches of Colorado: – Lower Colorado River mainstem – Gunnison River below Aspinall Unit – San Juan River basin – Lower Yampa River

9. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters - Basemap

10. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters - Wolford Wolford Mountain Reservoir

11. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters - CBT Colorado - Big Thompson Transmountain Diversion System

12. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters - Moffat Moffat Transmountain Diversion System

13. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters – Windy Gap Windy Gap Collection System

14. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters – Williams Fk Williams Fork Reservoir

15. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters – Dillon, Con-Hoosier, Climax Dillon Reservoir, Continental- Hoosier Transmountain Diversion Systems

16. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters – Green Mtn Green Mountain Reservoir (Part of C-BT System)

17. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters - Homestake Homestake Project (with Enlargement) Transmountain Diversion System

18. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters – Fry-Ark Fryingpan-Arkansas Transmountain Diversion System

19. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters – Indep Pass Twin Lakes Transmountain Diversion System

20. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters - Ruedi Ruedi Reservoir (Part of Fry-Ark System)

21. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters – Taylor Park Taylor Park Reservoir

22. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters – Combined Headwaters Systems Developed Headwaters Combined Systems

23. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters - Shoshone Shoshone Power Plant Senior Water Right (Summer, Fall, Winter)

24. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters - Aspinall Aspinall Unit (Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and Crystal Dams) and UVWUA Gunnison Tunnel

25. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters - Redlands Redlands Water and Power Company Senior Water Right (Fall and Winter)

26. Areas Under Control of Existing Diverters – GV Entities “Cameo Call” Grand Valley Agricultural Senior Water Rights (Late Summer and Early Fall)

27. PAST AND FUTURE EFFORTS 1937 Conservancy District Act – Required that any Water Conservancy District diverting from the Natural Basin of the Colorado River provide measures such that the future supply is not diminished nor is the future cost increased for in basin users. – Applies only to Water Conservancy Districts, not municipalities – Applied three times Green Mountain Reservoir Ruedi Reservoir Wolford Mountain Reservoir

28. WOLFORD MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR CASE STUDY Most recent implementation of Conservancy District Statute requiring Basin of Origin Mitigation Ultimate Cooperative Project with Denver Water Environmental Support

29. EARLY ACTIONS & AGREEMENTS 1968 – 1985  NCWCD files for water rights for Windy Gap Project  NCWCD forms Municipal Subdistrict to avoid Conservancy District requirements. Nine-year litigation results in Colorado Supreme Court ruling in favor of CRWCD.  IGA among CRWCD, NCWCD, MPWCD, GC & NWCCOG – measures include Azure Reservoir  Azure – Windy Gap Supplemental Agreement clears the way for CRWCD construction.

30. PERMITTING PHASE 1985 - 1988  Application for Special Use Permit filed  EIS and Feasibility Studies begins  CRWCD – Denver – NCWCD Agreement signed on water rights case  CRWCD - Denver lease agreement signed  Draft EIS issued  SDEIS issued

31. PERMITTING PHASE (con’t) 1989 – 1992  Design Engineer selected  FESI issued  Final Biological Opinion issued  Right-of-way grant issued  BR ROD for Substitution Agreement signed and filed in court  Design approved by SEO  COE 404 Permit issued

32. CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1992 – 1995  New lease agreement signed with Denver  Bid accepted for construction  8 month construction delay due to case No. 91CW252  Construction contract awarded  Construction commences for the reservoir  Relocation of US HWY 40 – requires 7 months  Construction commences for the recreation area

33. 1995 Wolford commences filling 1996 Recreation Area opens to the Public 1996 Wolford fills after 13 months of inflow OPERATIONS PHASE

34. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Cooperation is key to any new projects Local Support and Benefit needed Environmental Support and Benefit needed Legally and physically available water needed Financial Capability needed

35. One Strategy to Provide Additional East Slope Water Supplies Go far to the west to build a “classic” project involving new reservoirs, pumping plants, pipelines, tunnels, etc. Advantages: – Develops large amounts of water, especially “dry year” yields Disadvantages: – Enormous costs (billions), probably will require large public subsidies – Large and difficult environmental impacts – Overwhelming local and regional opposition

36. Another Strategy: Utilize existing projects and reservoirs in more efficient ways, store available wet year water, expand water re-use and conservation efforts. Advantages: – Maximizes existing infrastructure – Minimizes environmental impact – Reduces project costs Disadvantages: – Difficult and challenging institutional problems – Project costs still significant – May raise new environmental hurdles, primarily water quality (potable re-use and bio-fouling of wells) – Project yields may be considered less reliable

37. Colorado River Basin Proposal Step 1 - Hydrology Study Results July 9, 2007 Colorado River Water Conservation District Clinton Ditch and Reservoir Company Denver Water Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Eagle Park Reservoir Company Grand County Board of County Commissioners Middle Park Water Conservancy District Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Summit County Board of County Commissioners Western Water and Land William Lewis, PhD Grand River Consulting Leonard Rice Engineers

38. Project Purposes West Slope supply with firming Flow enhancement on Blue River Dillon water level management Supply for East Slope with additional S. Platte use

39. Green Mountain Pumpback – 42,700 AF/yr average delivery to East Slope Firms 20,000 af/yr new West Slope demand – delivers 13,700 af annually in DRY years Additional Denver Water demand of 8,000 AF/yr met Reduced substitution bill for Colorado Springs ~ 4,200 AF/yr for DRY years TOTAL Potential Add’l Supply ~ 68,600 AF/yr Minimum storage for DW in Wolford Mtn and Williams Fork is 16,000 AF at end of critical period Dillon Reservoir levels enhanced Green Mountain Reservoir Pumpback/ Fill Reduction

40. OTHER PROJECTS BEING INVESTIGATED UNION PARK PROJECT – No local Support YAMPA RIVER PUMPBACK – Needs local support/Environmental resolution and significant funding FLAMING GORGE PUMPBACK – Needs State and Upper basin Support

42. Questions