(supplemental slides) to bip overview and next steps
TRANSCRIPT
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