Interdisciplinary WaterInterdisciplinary Water Resources Seminar Resources Seminar

GS 592GS 592

Development of New Water ResourcesDevelopment of New Water ResourcesWayne VanderschuereWayne Vanderschuere

Colorado Springs UtilitiesColorado Springs Utilities Four service utility providing safe,

reliable, competitively-priced electric, natural gas, water and wastewater services to 500,000 people in Colorado Springs and surrounding communities Fast growing community with economy

based on high tech, military, education, services, and tourism

2008 Budget: $955 Million Some of the lowest utility rates,

nationally, as compared to peers Multiple J.D. Power awards for customer

satisfaction and systems reliability About 1,800 employees

OutlineOutline

Water System Overview

Water Resource Plan

The Southern Delivery System

Challenges

Water System MapWater System Map

LOCALCollection System

BLUE RIVERCollection System

HOMESTAKECollection System

TWIN LAKESCollection System

FRY-ARKCollection System

CONTINENTALDIVIDE

Colorado Springs

Pueblo

Salida

Denver

FountainCreek

HOMESTAKEPIPELINE

ArkansasRiver

BLUE RIVER PIPELINE

FVAPIPELINE

COLORADO CANALCollection System

RockyFord

Fort Collins

Water SystemWater System

Serves 412,800 people with about 81,000 acre-feet/year or 26.3 Billion Gallons/year Growing @ 2.2%/year

Infrastructure reaches over 3 rivers basins and 9 counties. 25 Storage Reservoirs 28 Storage Tanks 1,780 miles of mains 7 Treatment Facilities

Influenced by activities in Colorado, West, & nationally

Colorado Springs’ water supplyColorado Springs’ water supply On average 70% of water is delivered from Colorado River Basin

Homestake Twin Lakes Blue River Frying Pan-Arkansas Project

Via 3 delivery pipelines Otero Blue River Fountain Valley Authority

Water from Colorado River tributaries Reused to extinction via:

• exchanges for agricultural uses• in our non-potable system

How The System WorksHow The System Works

Distribution System

Customers Customers

DistributionStorage

Transmission Pipeline

Raw WaterPump Station

TerminalStorage

Water TreatmentPlant

Waste WaterCollection

System

GravityInterceptor

Force

Main

Lift Station

Waste WaterTreatment Plant

Arkansas River Basin Systems Discharge to

Stream SystemSl

udge

Lin

e

Land ApplicationSludge Disposal

RegulatoryStorage

MountainCollection

System

Exchange

Exc

han

ge

Non-pot

Pacific Storms & snow

Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan Recommendations from extensive public process, engineering, and economic modeling

Multiple solutions to meet Colorado Springs’ water needs through 2046

All recommendations currently being pursued

New major delivery system needed for 55% of future water supply

8

Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan Conservation

Low per person usage as compared to peers

Aggressive block pricing

Education and incentive programs2001 Single-Family Residential Water Consumption

107122 122 123

135 140 140 144159

182193

203211

230

0

50

100

150

200

250

Gallo

ns

per

Capita

per

Day

(GP

CD

)

Nonpotable water development 13% of water delivered

Averaging about 10.2 million gallons/day

System improvements 23.2 MGD Otero Expansion Project done in 2003 for +13 MGD, 24%

increase for this pipeline Pinello Wells Rehabilitation for 1.8 MGD - 2003 Woodmen Upgrades for 0.8 MGD - 2004 McCleary Wells for 0.6 MGD - 2005 Northgate and Mary Kyer Wells for 1.9 MGD - 2007 Pikeview to Mesa & Highline to Northfield for 4.4 MGD - 2008 Bear Creek Intake for 0.7 MGD - 2008

Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan

System Demand and Delivery CapacitySystem Firm Yield - 2005 Demand Forecasts

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

Flo

w (

MG

D)

Delivery Capacity

Revenue Demand

Revenue Demand + 95% CI

Historic Demand

Ote

ro E

xpan

sio

n,

Pin

ello

Wel

ls

Wo

od

men

Sys

tem

McC

lear

y W

ells

Pik

evie

w /

Hig

hlin

e to

No

rth

fiel

d, N

ort

hg

ate

and

Mar

y K

yer

Wel

ls

Bea

r C

reek

Div

.

need date

OutlineOutlineWater System OverviewWater System Overview

Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan

The Southern Delivery System

Purpose and NeedDelivery and storage of water supply

Provide redundancy for ageing infrastructureMaximize existing assets (water rights)

Proposed Southern Proposed Southern Delivery System Delivery System

OptionOption2008 Draft EIS2008 Draft EIS

2009 ROD and Construction starts2009 ROD and Construction starts

2012 Pumps & pipes2012 Pumps & pipes

2012 Water treatment – Phase I2012 Water treatment – Phase I

2014-2017 Jimmy Camp Reservoir2014-2017 Jimmy Camp Reservoir

2020-2030 Williams Creek Res.2020-2030 Williams Creek Res.

Project Cost Project Cost (2006 Dollars )(2006 Dollars )

Phase One Capital Cost: $593 Million Pipeline, pump stations, 50 million gallons a

day water treatment plant, and treated water pipelines

Future Phases Capital Cost: $440 Million Reservoirs and water treatment plant

expansions

NEPA ProcessNEPA ProcessThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal

agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet this requirement, federal agencies prepare a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews and comments on EISs prepared by other federal agencies, maintains a national filing system for all EISs, and assures that its own actions comply with NEPA.

Major Milestones and Schedule Resource Studies, 2006 Alternatives Released, 2007 Draft EIS for public comment, 1st Quarter 2008 Record of Decision, 1st Quarter 2009

Planned Environmental Planned Environmental Impact StudiesImpact Studies

Water System MapWater System Map

LOCALCollection System

BLUE RIVERCollection System

HOMESTAKECollection System

TWIN LAKESCollection System

FRY-ARKCollection System

CONTINENTALDIVIDE

Colorado Springs

Pueblo

Salida

Denver

FountainCreek

HOMESTAKEPIPELINE

ArkansasRiver

BLUE RIVER PIPELINE

FVAPIPELINE

COLORADO CANALCollection System

RockyFord

Proposed Alternative

No Action &

#7 Alternatives

County 1041 ProcessCounty 1041 ProcessIn 1974 the Colorado legislature adopted the

Land Use Act in response to the “rapid growth and development of the state and the resulting demands on its land resources. It was a first designed to

• Protect land resources by some control over “projects of statewide interest”

• Allocation resources among competing uses• Promulgate guidelines • Not prohibit

SDS SummarySDS SummarySDS is a cooperative regional project

• Lowest cost alternative• Environmentally responsible

The Southern Delivery System will NOT:• take another community’s water• impact Pueblo’s Historic Arkansas Riverwalk• “dry up” the Arkansas River through Pueblo• “dry up” lower Arkansas Valley

SummarySummary Water planning risks are significant

Supply side

Demand side

Infrastructure

A Comprehensive water supply plan needsDiversity

Flexibility

Project risks are significantPermitting: Federal and local

Political opposition

Environmental opposition

Financial and rate impactsWater projects are EXPENSIVE!

OutlineOutline

Water System OverviewWater System Overview

Water Resource PlanWater Resource Plan

The Southern Delivery SystemThe Southern Delivery System

Challenges

ChallengesChallenges

Demand > Supply = needGrowth in Colorado and the WestGroundwater relianceClimate variability and change

Aging infrastructure

RegulatoryWater quality

ChallengesChallenges

Competing Uses

Watershed & Forest Management

Challenges: the biggestChallenges: the biggest

People!!!!EngineeringScientificBusiness & FinancialLegalRelationships &

communicationsLeaders!

Questions & DiscussionQuestions & DiscussionWayne Vanderschuere

719.668.3811

www.csu.org

www.sdseis.com