Meeting Colorado’s Future Water Needs With Limited Resources

The Colorado Water Conservation Board

Finance Section Chief : Tim Feehan, P.E.

2010 Colorado Water Workshop

Colorado Water Conservation Board

Presentation Summary: 2050 M&I Gap Projections Meeting Colorado Water Demands

Presentation Summary: CWCB Loan Program & Other Funding

Options Summary

Colorado Water Conservation Board

Eric Wilkinson

Reed Dils51 Projects$103,000,000Travis Smith

17 Projects$6,800,000

Jeff Blakeslee14 Projects$23,000,000

Carl Trick3 Projects$1,500,000

John Redifer67 Projects$101,000,000

John McClow32 Projects$10,000,000

Barbara Biggs

April Montgomery30 Projects$39,000,000

206 Projects$393,000,000

• 2050 M&I Water Use Projections– final complete

• Energy Study Phase 2 Revised Water Use Scenarios Memo – draft roundtable product complete; finalize in August

• M&I Gap Analysis – draft scheduled for August

• Reconnaissance Level cost Estimates for Ag & New Supply Strategy Concepts– final complete

• Ag Demands/ Alternative Transfer Methods – draft complete; finalize in 2010 Statewide Water Needs Assessment (SNA)

• Nonconsumptive:– Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool Pilot Study– final complete– NCNA Focus Mapping (Phase 1 )– final complete– NCNA Phase 2 – draft complete; finalize in 2010 State Needs Assessment

• Conservation Products:– SWSI Conservation Levels Analysis – final complete– Evaluation of Passive Savings– final complete– Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado–

final scheduled for August– M&I Conservation Strategies – draft scheduled for September; finalize in 2010 SNA– Feasibility Study to Assess the Permanency & Penetration Rates of M&I Water Conservation –

draft scheduled for October; finalize in Dec. 2010

• Portfolios and Strategies – draft scheduled for September – Density Memo – draft completed and will be appendix for portfolios memo

• Final 2010 State Needs Assessment Report – due Nov/Jan timeframe

List of Reports

M&I Needs Portfolio0

500,000

1,000,000

State of Colorado 2050 M&I Needs and Portfolio to Meet Needs

2050 M&I Water Needs 2050 SSI Water Needs 2050 Oil Shale Water Needs

Passive M&I Conservation IPPs Conservation

Land Use/Density New Supply Development New Supply Development Reuse

Agricultural Transfer Agricultural Transfer Reuse Reuse for Ag Use

Acr

e-Fe

et/Y

ear

Reports in M&I Context Oil Shale Phase II

Energy Report

M&I Demands to

2050

The Gap

Identified Projects & Processes

(IPPs)

Passive Conservation

Report

Density Memo

Conservation Strategy

ATM Methods

Ag Transfer & New Supply

Development Cost

Estimates

2050 M&I and SSI Demand

Low Middle High2008 2035 2050

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Yampa Basin SSIYampa Basin M&ISouthwest SSISouthwest M&ISouth Platte Basin SSISouth Platte Basin M&IRio Grande Basin SSIRio Grande Basin M&INorth Platte Basin SSINorth Platte Basin M&IMetro Basin SSIMetro Basin M&IGunnison Basin SSIGunnison Basin M&IColorado Basin SSIColorado Basin M&IArkansas Basin SSIArkansas Basin M&I

Wat

er D

eman

ds (a

cre-

feet

/yea

r)

M&I Gap – Low Scenario

2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 -

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

Acre

-Fee

t/Ye

ar

Existing Supplies and Systems

IPPs if 100% Successful

2050 Gap - Low Scenario(150,000 AFY)

M&I Gap – Medium Scenario

2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 -

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

Acre

-Fee

t/Ye

ar

Existing Supplies and Systems

IPPs based on IBCC Input

2050 Gap - Medium Scenario360,000 AFY

M&I Gap – High Scenario

2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 -

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

Acre

-Fee

t/Ye

ar

Existing Supplies and Systems

Status Quo IPPs

2050 Gap - High Scenario580,000 AFY

Addressing the M&I GapStrategies Projects and Methods

Po

rtfo

lio

• Agricultural Transfers (Traditional and Alternative) South Platte Basin Arkansas Basin

Agricultural Transfer

• Green Mountain• Yampa

Colorado River System

• Percent Savings Off of 2008 Water UsageConservation

• Providers current conservation plans and optimization of existing infrastructure

• Southern Delivery System, Arkansas Valley Conduit, Wolcott Reservoir, Elkhead Enlargement, Moffat Collection System, Rueter Hess Enlargement, Thornton Northern Project, Prairie Waters, Chatfield Reallocation, Northern Integrated Supply Plan (NISP), Windy Gap Firming, Halligan Enlargement, Seaman Enlargement

IPPs

• Flaming Gorge• Blue Mesa

• 60 to 70 Percent Statewide Success Rate Desired on IPPs• 15 to 20 Percent off of 2008 Demand• Agricultural Transfers Between 60,000 to 200,000 out of ag AF• 350,000 AF from New Supply Development for East Slope and

West Slope

Mid Demand/Mid Supply

Working Portfolio Goals

35,000 to

73,000 acres

51,000 acres

77,000 acres

21,000 to

28,000 acres

180,000 to

267,000 acres

7,000 to

13,000 acres

83,000 to

84,000 acres

18,000acres

66,000 acres

2050 Changes in Irrigated Acres

Statewide Total:504,000 to 718,00 acres15 to 20 percent

M&I Needs Portfolio0

500,000

1,000,000

State of Colorado 2050 M&I Needs and Portfolio to Meet Needs

2050 M&I Water Needs 2050 SSI Water Needs 2050 Oil Shale Water Needs

Passive M&I Conservation IPPs Conservation

Land Use/Density New Supply Development New Supply Development Reuse

Agricultural Transfer Agricultural Transfer Reuse Reuse for Ag Use

Acr

e-Fe

et/Y

ear

Reports in the M&I Context

Oil Shale Phase II Energy Report

Build-out: 0, 59, 120 KAF2050 Range: 0, 7.2, 44 KAF

The Gap150 KAF to

580 KAF27-37% w/ IPPs @ 100% Success New M&I

Demands to 2050

2050 Baseline Demands: 745 KAF to

1.1 MAF

Passive Conservation

Report 154 KAF

IPPs439 KAF to 596KAF

Conservation Strategy

157 KAF - 522 KAF

Density Memo10% off new metro supplies (35 KAF).

Generally x % denser = x/2% water savings

Ag Transfer & New Supply

Development Cost

EstimatesLife Cycle Costs: Ag $16 B-$24 B

New $16 B-$19 B

ATM Methods1. Presumptive

Consumptive Use2. Ability to transfer

part of CU3. Ditch-wide

analysis

Other Needs:• Nonconsumpitive:

700+ Projects & MethodsMapping finalized for whole state

• Agricultural Needs: 2050 Ag Demands:5.6 MAF (15 to 20 % decrease in irrigated acres)

Funding $$$$

Financing/ Water Project Loans

• Low Interest Loans for Water Projects (2.75% for ag)– Rehabilitation– Dam Safety Restrictions– New or Increased Storage– Purchase of Water Rights

• 424 Project Authorized Since 1971• $704M in Loan Funds Approved To-

date• 50 Projects in Design/Const. - $331M

Severance Tax Trust Fund

Perpetual Base Account

ConstructionFund

&

CWCB is Self-Supporting

General Fund

$0

$

CWCB’s Funds

CWCB REVOLVING FUNDS

1. Construction Fund – Principal & Interest from Loans, Treasury Interest & Federal Mineral Lease.

2. Severance Tax Perp. Base Fund Principal & Interest from Loans, Treasury Interest, and 25% of all Severance Tax.

$130M transferred FY09/10

Legislative Cash Transfers

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010Est

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

CWCB’s Fund Equity Growth

Construction FundSeverance TaxLost Growth - CFLost Growth - ST

EQU

ITY

(mill

ions

)

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 Est.

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

CWCB’s Federal Mineral Lease and Severance Tax Revenues

Mineral Lease

Severance Tax

$ M

illio

ns

Program Impacts - CWCB

• No New Loans 2010, 2011, - ?• No New Statewide or Basin Grants• No New Studies • Compact Compliance• Limited Resources for Satellite Monitor and

Stream Gauge Monitoring and Decision Support System

Program Impacts – (SEO)

• Stream Gauge Monitoring Program at Risk• Reduced SEO Funding Levels:

– 2,900 Dams/Reservoir – 1,904 Jurisdictional– 118,000 AF of Restricted Storage Statewide– 243 SWSP’s reviewed 2008– 5,600 Well Permit Applications Reviewed– 1,174 Small/Large Capacity Well Permits Issue– Adm. of 14M AF of Annual Surface Diversions

Other Funding Options

• Water and Power Development Authority• USDA Rural Development• Natural Resources Conservation Service• Department of Local Affairs• Federal Projects

Summary

• Water shortage is not just a 2030/50 Issue• Conservation, Re-use, Alt. Transfer Methods• Additional Storage • Rehabilitation of Existing Infrastructure• Funding and Impacts• Get Involved