• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Garfield County Town Hall Meeting
 

Garfield County Town Hall Meeting

on

  • 97 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
97
Views on SlideShare
97
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Water is in short supply. In the comingdecades, there could be a gap between watersupply and demand of as much as half amillion acre-feet or more per year. The entirestate is put at risk by this scenario, but it isparticularly threatening to Colorado’s ruralcommunities.
  • What we doknow is Colorado’s Water Plan will be balanced and will reflect Colorado’s best values. Thegovernor’s executive order specifies that Colorado’s Water Plan must promote a productiveeconomy that supports vibrant and sustainable businesses and cities, viable and productiveagriculture, and a robust skiing, recreation and tourism industry. The plan must further efficient andeffective water infrastructure promoting smart land use and a strong environment that includeshealthy watersheds, rivers and streams, and wildlife.
  • My experienceNot paying attention to regional and statewide events On the ground needs to get involved
  • These are the 9 roundtables created from HB 1177Each of the 9 roundtables will create a BIPPopulation is in metro , south platt and arkansas
  • Our basin needs to be unified Very diversesMain stem calls very good Ag in Grand County is keeping at bay more TMDWatershedsQualityConservationA realization of non consumptive and that helps the grand valley Ag diversions have dictated the timing of water
  • All areas of the state have projected gaps, but the size of the gap is the largest on the Front Range.Current (Colorado Basin) demand 62,000 acre-feet which can increase to ~120,000 acre-feet in the futureThis graph just shows the urban water gap – many argue that we also already have substantial gaps in meeting agricultural and environmental needs. In the Colorado Basin: Shortage of 100,000 acre-feet of water to support irrigated agricultureThere is also a non-consumptive gap in the Colorado River Basin, although it hasn’t been quantified.
  • This is a reallocation of water The Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Inter-Basin Compact Committee (a Roundtable of Roundtables) have identified these “four legs of the stool” for filling the gap. None of these tools are without costs: to achieve ambitious conservation goals is difficult without new regulations and addressing touchy land-use issues; “buy and dry” has devastated some eastern plains communities;the headwaters are already suffering from transmountain diversions. 100,000 AFY shortage Incentives to encourage ag to continue production…reimburse ag for things beyond ISFMinimize taxes, improve farm economicsIdentify things you could do with no injury to others localized benefitsColorado basin 268,000 acres 8% of state total 584,000 afy current cu of ag areageEstimated that 40,000 to 58000 lost to urbanization
  • Who has been attending water providers Need for physical water storage not just augmentation storageHeadwaters versus grand valleyOff channel Research how Permitting process can be more efficient (time and cost)Colorado Basin Water Providers are very reliant upon stream diversion, at risk from drought and low stream flows. The SGM team will interview all 54 water providers to gain more specificityPrioritize Storage projects based upon numerical rating process i.e. multi-purposeUncertain future with land use, drought, climate change, regulatory climate is a problem dictates need for storageNot much interest in regional large reservoir Need to know the short term impact to streams i.e. monthlySWSI looked at annual averages and not short term impact to streamsWest slope reliant upon streams and not reservoirsCostlyConcerns about losing water rightsInconsistenciesDoes not allow for flexibility for water providers to meet multi-purpose needsProtect Shoshone…..has CCA done that? If not should West Slope buy the Shoshone Water RightsProtect GVIC
  • 15 mile reach is very important to nonconsumptive needs 5-2-1 Drainage authorityRecreational community Selenium task force Water quality big issue SALINITYSELENIUM
  • 100,000 AFY shortage Incentives to encourage ag to continue production…reimburse ag for things beyond ISFMinimize taxes, improve farm economicsIdentify things you could do with no injury to others localized benefitsColorado basin 268,000 acres 8% of state total 584,000 afy current cu of ag areageEstimated that 40,000 to 58000 lost to urbanizationUnless we do something tomanage our water future differently than we dotoday, more and more agricultural water will bebought to supply our growing cities, therebydrying up hundreds of thousands of acres ofproductive farm land and jeopardizing the economy and livelihoods of rural Colorado. NortheasternColorado alone is expected to lose approximately 20 percent of agricultural land currently underproduction from purchase agreements already in place.
  • Close to 200,000 acres 3500 sf per household Ag versus urbanization½ growth in grand valley lose ag land60000 acres in metro 112000 acresLoss of ag land In rivers best interest Compact
  • These are the steps in the planning process – there is a very ambitious timetable to complete all of these steps over the coming year.
  • As you are probably aware, we are entering an era of increasing competition for water. Agriculture is currently by far the largest user of water in the state. Municipal use is where the largest growth is expected. Water to sustain the environment and provide recreation don’t deplete streams, but water rights to ensure those functions can limit other uses. "Out here on the Western Slope, oil shale will always be the fuel of the future," Spehar said.Energy
  • What we doknow is Colorado’s Water Plan will be balanced and will reflect Colorado’s best values. Thegovernor’s executive order specifies that Colorado’s Water Plan must promote a productiveeconomy that supports vibrant and sustainable businesses and cities, viable and productiveagriculture, and a robust skiing, recreation and tourism industry. The plan must further efficient andeffective water infrastructure promoting smart land use and a strong environment that includeshealthy watersheds, rivers and streams, and wildlife.
  • Who has been attending water providers Need for physical water storage not just augmentation storageHeadwaters versus grand valleyOff channel Research how Permitting process can be more efficient (time and cost)Colorado Basin Water Providers are very reliant upon stream diversion, at risk from drought and low stream flows. The SGM team will interview all 54 water providers to gain more specificityPrioritize Storage projects based upon numerical rating process i.e. multi-purposeUncertain future with land use, drought, climate change, regulatory climate is a problem dictates need for storageNot much interest in regional large reservoir Need to know the short term impact to streams i.e. monthlySWSI looked at annual averages and not short term impact to streamsWest slope reliant upon streams and not reservoirsCostlyConcerns about losing water rightsInconsistenciesDoes not allow for flexibility for water providers to meet multi-purpose needsProtect Shoshone…..has CCA done that? If not should West Slope buy the Shoshone Water RightsProtect GVIC
  • 15 mile reach is very important to nonconsumptive needs 5-2-1 Drainage authorityRecreational community Selenium task force Water quality big issue SALINITYSELENIUM
  • 100,000 AFY shortage Incentives to encourage ag to continue production…reimburse ag for things beyond ISFMinimize taxes, improve farm economicsIdentify things you could do with no injury to others localized benefitsColorado basin 268,000 acres 8% of state total 584,000 afy current cu of ag areageEstimated that 40,000 to 58000 lost to urbanizationUnless we do something tomanage our water future differently than we dotoday, more and more agricultural water will bebought to supply our growing cities, therebydrying up hundreds of thousands of acres ofproductive farm land and jeopardizing the economy and livelihoods of rural Colorado. NortheasternColorado alone is expected to lose approximately 20 percent of agricultural land currently underproduction from purchase agreements already in place.

Garfield County Town Hall Meeting Garfield County Town Hall Meeting Presentation Transcript

  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Celebrate…because water is important for all that we do
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th 4 Colorado River Water – Supporting Diverse Land Use Environment and Game Agriculture Recreation and Tourism Industry and Energy Municipalities Grand Junction looking towards Grand Mesa
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Celebrate…because Colorado is a headwaters state Snow falls in the mountains Builds as snowpack
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Governor Hickenlooper’s Executive Order What? • May of 2013….start • Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) will coordinate the plan • Plan will be prepared by the 9 Roundtables • Draft on CWCB’s desk by July 2014 • Our team were given notice to proceed on December 11th, 2013 • Plan has to show how we meet the Gap • Planning horizon is 2050
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th WHY? • The CWP is an opportunity to allow the statewide thinking to transition from an individual perspective to a regional perspective.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. - 80% of Colorado’s population is on the Front Range. - 80% of Colorado’s precipitation falls on the Western Slope.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. And drains in the spring and summer. Nourishing 19 states and Mexico
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. 1922 Compact: Upper Basin states must “not cause the flow of the River at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre feet in any 10 consecutive years.”
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th15 Colorado River Compact • Senate Bill-122 study underway to determine risk of continued water development includes other basins feeding greater Colorado basin Lake Powell has been our savings account for the compact
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Future imbalances between supply and demand, as projected by the US Bureau of Reclamation, could exacerbate current stresses
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Lake Powell Elevations
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. COLORADO BASIN’S PREDICAMENT •The 80/20 problem •Existing Stresses •Future Stresses
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Threats, Challenges, Issues • Compact Calls • Transbasin diversions • Endangered Species • Growth Separation of land use and water planning • Energy • Shoshone Call • Loss of Agriculture • Climate Change
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Existing Stresses 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: 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.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Full report available at: http://www.nwccog.org/index.php/programs/water-qualityquantity-committee/ Figures from report “Water and its Relationship to the Economies of the Headwaters Counties,” commissioned by the Northwest Colorado Council of governments.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Agriculture Municipal/Dome stic Recreation/Fishe ries Industrial/Comm ercial Augmentation Recharge Water Deliveries in Colorado Source: Colorado Division of Water Resources/Water College Program “Water 101”
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.28 PALISADE GRAND JUNCTION GLENWOOD SPRINGS BASALT VAIL GRANBY DILLON ASPEN EAGLE GRAND GARFIELD MESA PITKIN SUMMIT ROUTT EAGLE County 2000 Population 2030 Population Increase in Population 2000 to 2030 Percent Change 2000 to 2030 Percent Annual Growth Rate Eagle 43,300 86,900 43,600 101 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 Colorado Basin Population Projections Population doubling Fastest growing basin in Colorado Ref: SWSI and *AGNC KREMMLING RIFLE
  • Colorado Basin Roundtable tasks:  Assess internal needs & identify projects to meet them  Negotiate how to meet state needs.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Shoshone Source: Western History/Genealogy Department, Denver Public Library
  • Colorado is facing a “Gap”
  • Conservation Ag to Urban Transfers New Projects (Colorado Basin development) How can we fill the gap? Already planned projects (Windy Gap firming, Moffat Collection System) + Graphics provided by the Colorado Foundation for Water Education The Governor wants a draft plan by the end of 2014 & a final plan by the end of 2015.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th PLT Themes • Need for Multi-Purpose Projects • Land Use Connection with Water Use • Healthy Rivers • Local Control • Protect Main-stem Water Right Operations • Regional cooperation needed • The importance of Saving Agriculture
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Roaring Fork 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
  • Public Outreach • Nonconsumptive – Recovery Program, Conservation Rep. for the Recovery Program Implementation Team – Bureau of Reclamation – Colorado Parks and Wildlife – Denver Water – Roaring Fork Conservancy – Bureau of Land Management – United States Forest Service – Eagle River Water and Sanitation District – Eagle River Watershed Council – Nonconsumptive Roundtable Representatives • Consumptive – Water provider interviews (Grand, Pitkin, Garfield, Summit) – Water provider interviews in Eagle County, Mesa County March – Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative Meeting (January 23) – Roaring Fork Water Efficiency Group (January 28) • Agricultural – NRCS Ag Days (January 29) – Rancher/Farmer individual mtgs – Colorado River District-Colorado River Water Supply and Demand Study
  • Public Outreach • Colorado Mesa University • AGNC • SEO office (current and former staff) • NWCOG (March 13th) • Water Attorneys • Mid Valley Metropolitan District • Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District • Kiwanis • Summit County Trout Unlimited March 18th • Summit County Town Hall Meeting March 26th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th What would you like to include in Colorado’s Water Plan?
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Water Development and growth will not stop in 2050!! • We would like to hear from you! • Questions? Thank You
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Constraints on water use: Colorado Water Law Colorado River Basin Compact
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.Map Source: Colorado River District Website Did you know that these projects account for over 25% of Colorado's total use of the Colorado River?
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. How water is used in Colorado:  86.5 % Agriculture  6.7% Municipal  3% Recreation, fisheries & in-stream flows (legally dedicated for those purposes – much more is used recreationally on the way to other uses).  1.9% Commercial, Industrial and Institutional  1.9% Augmentation and replacement of groundwater in shallow aquifers. Source: Statistics on water deliveries provided by the Colorado State Engineer’s Office to the Colorado Foundation for Water Education in 2002.
  • Assessing “Nonconsumptive Needs” WHAT IS A NON-CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE? WATER THAT SUPPORTS: •RIPARIAN PROCESSES AND FLOODPLAIN FUNCTIONS •AESTHETICSAND QUALITY OF LIFE •RECREATION •FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES WITHOUT CONSUMING ANY OF IT
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Problem # 3 • Do we care if we save Agriculture? • How do we save Agriculture?
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Roundtable Meeting BIP Schedule • December 11 – Notice to proceed from CWCB • December 30th – Goals and measurable outcomes – Explain the GAP – Constraints and opportunities • January 27 – Evaluate current Basin Operation and hydrology • February 24 – Projects and Methods • March 24 – Projects and Methods • April 28 – Implementation Strategies • May 26 – How does plan meet our Goals/White Paper • June 23 – Check in with CBRT • July 15 – Draft BIP due to CWCB by July 15 • July through December 2014 – CWCB will take 9 plans and mold into CWP. Draft on Governors Desk December 2014
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Water Provider Interview Themes • Excellent, and comprehensive legal water supply portfolio’s on an individual basis • Physical Water Supply Planning based upon firm yield in dry year…based upon historical hydrology. • Not enough thought to drought, Climate change, future uncertainty and land use • Physical supplies have not been given the same level of hierarchy of legal, paper, augmentation water? • Where ever that 240% growth will occur will impact you!
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Water Provider Interviews? • Plans are very reliant upon Augmentation Storage and exchanges! • Future storage is required and needs to be above supply….not just augmentation storage. Why? – Reliant upon stream flows – Uncertainty – Land Use changes – Climate changes – Extended droughts beyond historical averages – Customers are very engaged with in-stream flows • Under current regulatory climate future reservoirs very expensive and can not be done by any one entity. • No discussion of regional projects • Not focused on Compact Call implications!
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Non Consumptive Themes • 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
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Agriculture PLT Themes • 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
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Grand Valley Irrigators • Statement of Position – Continuation of Colorado Water Law including prior appropriations – Oppose Federal and State Mandates on GVIC water rights – Support Barriers to efficient wise innovative use of Ag Water – Pursue common interests with municipal partners – Resist new diversions or River flow proposals which would negatively impact Grand Valley – Encourage Market Based solutions – Seek Permanent solution to Shoshone Power Call – Recognize that “New Supply” Options would result in unacceptable impacts to GV
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. The Colorado River Basin is still in a drought
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Public Outreach • Facebook – Go to your Facebook page; type in Colorado Basin Implementation Plan in Search. – In two days we are up to 273 followers – Once you are on BIP page go to friends and invite your friends to like this page. • Web Page http://www.coloradobip.sgm-inc.com • Twitter Feed @ColoBIP
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th • Thanks for the opportunity to have a conversation! Questions??
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Colorado Basin Planning Cycle Vision of what CBRT can and should accomplish Inventory & conclusions of existing reports Constraints & opportunities -Water administration - Current & future shortages Projects & methods to meet objectives Implementation strategies Has BIP met objectives & measurable outcomes? Public Involvement Public Involvement
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Why? • Statewide Municipal demands are estimated to increase from 975,000 AFY to 1,360,000 AFY by year 2035. This is an addl 383,000 AFY • With passive water conservation 2050 statewide M & I water demands will range from 1.5 to 1.8 AFY • By 2050 Colorado will need between 538,000 and 812,000 AFY additional water to meet M&I demands. • Passive conservation savings will result in 154,000 AFY reduction Statewide or just over 8% decrease in M&I water demands for 2050 for the medium demand scenario. • For the Colorado Basin the 2008 AFY water demand was 130,000 AFY – In 2050 low 270,000 med 290,000 high 330,000 no passive conservation – In 2050 low 200,000 med 260,000 high 300,000 with passive conservation • M&I and SSI demands for the Colorado Basin in 2008 is 68,480 AFY – In 2035 111,240 – In 2050 low 129,000 med 149,000 high 179,440
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Conveyance System Improvements • Canal Lining • Intake improvements • New Technology Rubicon
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Transfers • Rotational Fallowing • Super Ditch
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Irrigation Efficiency Programs • Conversion to sprinklers in lieu of Flood Irrigation • What happens with water rights? • Return flows • Is this really more efficient…..CU versus Diversions • Can’t harm downstream juniors • How do you shepherd this water downstream
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. 2050 Water Needs Low Med High Basin [AF] [AF] [AF] Colorado Basin 64,447 81,470 111,175 Eagle County 10,102 14,036 20,156 Garfield County 22,455 26,000 33,389 Grand County 4,068 5,156 6,732 Mesa County 14,082 17,529 24,320 Pitkin County 4,745 6,652 9,785 Summit County 8,996 12,097 16,793 Gunnison Basin 16,325 19,169 22,982 Delta County 5,322 5,918 6,677 Gunnison County 1,906 2,737 3,776 Hinsdale County 231 282 345 Mesa County 1,565 1,825 2,313 Montrose County 7,021 7,886 9,062 Ouray County 281 520 807
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Governor Hickenlooper’s Executive Order What?
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Water Provider Interviews Themes? • Most Water Providers have very complex physical and legal water right plans! • Future projects were not captured in SWSI • Plans are very reliant upon Augmentation Storage and exchanges! • Physical Water Supply Planning based upon firm yield in dry year…based upon historical hydrology. • Future storage is required and needs to be above supply….not just augmentation storage. Why? – Reliant upon stream flows – Uncertainty – Land Use changes – Climate changes – Extended droughts beyond historical averages – Customers are very engaged with in-stream flows • Under current regulatory climate future reservoirs very expensive and can not be done by any one entity. • No discussion of regional projects • Not focused on Compact Call implications!
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Colorado Colorado River Water Conservation District, Denver Water Wolford Reservoir Enlargement 2,000 $1,800,000 6,500 Colorado Colorado River Water Conservation District, Denver Water, City of Aurora, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority Wolcott Reservoir 25,000 $60,000,000 100,000 Colorado Upper Colorado River Basin Study (UPCO) Grand County M&I 2,400 $25,000,000 Colorado Upper Colorado River Basin Study (UPCO) Summit County M&I and Environmental 9,900 Colorado Dillon and Silverthorne Old Dillon Reservoir Expansion $7,000,000 286 Colorado Ute Water Conservancy District Hunter Reservoir Enlargement 1,200 $5,000,000 1,200 Colorado Town of Eagle Water Rights Acquisition 369 Colorado Town of Silt Water Rights Acquisition 160 Colorado Town of Silt Reudi Contracts 217 Colorado City of Aspen Conservation 270 Colorado City of Aspen Golf Course Reuse/West Aspen Reclaimed Project 540 Colorado Town of New Castle Ag Transfer Water Rights Dedication Policy 3,300 Gunnison Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District Plan for augmentation for non- agricultural purposes using Aspinall Unit 500 Gunnison Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District Reservoirs on Cochetopa Crrek 500 Gunnison Mt.Crested Butte and the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District Augmentation Storage for Mt. Crested Butte 400 $6,000,000 Gunnison Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Hinsdale County Commissioners Lake San Cristobal water development 950 $9,000,000
  • Governor Hickenlooper’s Executive Order Why? 1. The Gap between water supply and demand is real….500,000 AFY 2. Drought conditions will hasten impact of Gap 3. Current rate of transfer of water rights from Ag is unacceptable 4. Can not separate Water Quantity and Water Quality….need to address conjunctively 5. Interstate Issues pressing 6. Front Range would like to see a new supply project
  • Colorado’s 9 Roundtables 1. Arkansas 2. Colorado 3. Gunnison 4. Metro 5. North Platte 6. Rio Grande 7. South Platte 8. Southwest 9. Yampa/White
  • Our population is increasing but there’s no new water. Many uses compete for a scarce and limited water supply. Municipal & Industrial 9% Agriculture 86% Recreation Environment Graphics provided by the Colorado Foundation for Water
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Policy PLT Themes • 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
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th. Governor Hickenlooper’s Executive Order What? • May of 2013….start • Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) will coordinate the plan • Plan will be prepared by the 9 Roundtables • Draft on CWCB’s desk by July 2014 • Our team were given notice to proceed on December 11th, 2013 • Plan has to show how we meet the Gap • Planning horizon is 2050
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Roundtable Meeting BIP Schedule • December 11 – Notice to proceed from CWCB • December 30th – Goals and measurable outcomes – Explain the GAP – Constraints and opportunities • January 27 – Evaluate current Basin Operation and hydrology • February 24 – Projects and Methods • March 24 – Projects and Methods • April 28 – Implementation Strategies • May 26 – How does plan meet our Goals/White Paper • June 23 – Check in with CBRT • July 15 – Draft BIP due to CWCB by July 15 • July through December 2014 – CWCB will take 9 plans and mold into CWP. Draft on Governors Desk December 2014
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Consumptive PLT Themes • 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
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Water Provider Interview Themes • Excellent, and comprehensive legal water supply portfolio’s on an individual basis • Physical Water Supply Planning based upon firm yield in dry year…based upon historical hydrology. • Not enough thought to drought, Climate change, future uncertainty and land use • Physical supplies have not been given the same level of hierarchy of legal, paper, augmentation water? • Where ever that 240% growth will occur will impact you!
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Water Provider Interviews? • Plans are very reliant upon Augmentation Storage and exchanges! • Future storage is required and needs to be above supply….not just augmentation storage. Why? – Reliant upon stream flows – Uncertainty – Land Use changes – Climate changes – Extended droughts beyond historical averages – Customers are very engaged with in-stream flows • Under current regulatory climate future reservoirs very expensive and can not be done by any one entity. • No discussion of regional projects • Not focused on Compact Call implications!
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Non Consumptive Themes • 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
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Agriculture PLT Themes • 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
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th Grand Valley Irrigators • Statement of Position – Continuation of Colorado Water Law including prior appropriations – Oppose Federal and State Mandates on GVIC water rights – Support Barriers to efficient wise innovative use of Ag Water – Pursue common interests with municipal partners – Resist new diversions or River flow proposals which would negatively impact Grand Valley – Encourage Market Based solutions – Seek Permanent solution to Shoshone Power Call – Recognize that “New Supply” Options would result in unacceptable impacts to GV
  • Town Hall Meeting March 11th.