1. 1 Statewide Water Supply Initiative Gunnison Water Workshop July 29, 2005

2. 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. 3

4. 4 Major Findings

5. 5 1. Significant Increases in Colorado’s Population will Intensify Competition for Water

6. 6 Population Projections by Basin Basin20002030 Increase in Population Percent Change 2000-2030 Annual Growth Rate Arkansas 835,130 1,293,000457,90055%1.5% Colorado 248,000 492,600244,60099%2.3% San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel 90,900 171,60080,70089%2.1% Gunnison 88,600 161,50072,90082%2.0% North Platte 1,600 2,00040025%0.7% Rio Grande 46,400 62,70016,30035%1.0% South Platte 2,985,600 4,911,6001,926,00065%1.7% Yampa / White / Green 39,300 61,40022,10056%1.5% Total 4,335,500 7,156,4002,820,90065%1.7% Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section

7. 7 Statewide Agricultural Demands Basin2000 Irrigated Acres Irrigation Water Requirement (AF/Year) Water Supply Limited Consumptive Use (AF/Year) Gross Diversions (AF/ Year) Arkansas *405,000748,000619,0001,770,000 Colorado238,000366,000319,0001,764,000 Dolores/San Juan/ San Miguel 255,000370,000294,000953,000 Gunnison264,000473,000396,0001,705,000 North Platte116,00096,000 397,000 Rio Grande633,0001,108,000776,0001,660,000 South Platte1,027,0001,798,0001,541,0002,606,000 Yampa/White/Green118,000138,000123,000642,000 TOTAL3,056,0005,097,0004,164,00011,497,000

8. 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. 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) Arkansas256,90018,600354,90098,00080,50017,500 Colorado 74,100 7,800 136,000 61,90058,7003,200 San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel 23,600 2,400 42,40018,80013,9004,900 Gunnison 20,600 2,100 35,500 14,90012,5002,400 North Platte 500— 600 100 — Rio Grande 17,400 1,400 21,700 4,300 — South Platte 772,400 68,700 1,182,100 409,700319,10090,600 Yampa / White / Green29,400900 51,700 22,300 — TOTAL 1,194,900 101,900 1,824,900 630,000511,400118,600

10. 10 3. If Identified M&I Projects and Processes Are Not Successfully Implemented, Colorado Could See a Significantly Greater Reduction in Irrigated Agricultural Lands

11. 11 Potential Changes in Irrigated Acres Source: Colorado's Decision Support Systems and Basin Roundtable/ Basin Advisor input.

12. 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. 13 1,530,000 560,000 310,000 4,500,000 510,000 1,780,000 320,000 110,000 400,000 164,000 YAMPA WHITE COLORADO GUNNISON DOLORES SAN JUAN ARKANSAS SOUTH PLATTE N. PLATTE LARAMIE RIO GRANDE WEST SLOPE Population: 467,000 Irrigated Acres: 880,000 EAST SLOPE Population: 3,869,000 Irrigated Acres: 2,270,000 2000 Population, Irrigated Acres and Flows

14. 14 Yampa/White/Green North Platte South Platte Colorado Gunnison Dolores/ San Juan/ San Miguel Rio Grande Arkansas 107,600 AF 10,300 AF Identified Projects 404,300 AF Gap 107,800 AF 2030 M&I Water Demands and Gaps

15. 15 High and Low Estimates of 2030 State of Colorado’s Share of Colorado River Compact Depletions Colorado’s Compact Entitlement BOR Hydrologic Determination

16. 16

17. 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. 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. 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. 20 Estimated Total Potential Additional Water Conservation Savings for M&I and Self-Supplied Industrial Uses from 2000 to 2030 Dolores/ San Juan Level V Level IV Level III Level II Current Level 1 ArkansasColoradoGunnisonNorth PlatteRio Grande Yampa / White South Platte 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percent Reduction from 2030 Baseline

21. 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. 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. 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. 24 Recommendations Next Steps

25. 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. 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. 27 SWSI Phase 2 Specific 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. 28 CWCB November 2004 Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) Mission Statement The 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. 29 Discussion of Workgroup Products Water Efficiency Alternatives to Permanent Ag Dry-up Quantify Recreation and Environmental Need Addressing the Gap including Alternatives Project Concepts Multi-Use Projects Funding Technical Roundtables Input to CWCB BRT 6

30. 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. 31 SWSI Interbasin Compact Interface

32. 32 Additional Information Questions www.cwcb.state.co.us swsi@cdm.com