Arkansas Basin RoundtableMarch 8, 2017Arkansas Basin Implementation Plan Coordinator

Overview❖ History of Defining the Gap➢SWSI 2004

❖Ark RT 2008-2009➢SWSI Update➢Nonconsumptive Needs Methodology➢Meeting the Needs Report

❖Ark RT 2010-2013➢SWSI 2010➢The Portfolio Exercise➢Ark RT 2012 Update Memorandum

SWSI 2004

❖Pre-dates the formation of Roundtables

❖630,000 AF Muni “Gap”

❖Was to be followed by SWSI Phase 2

Ark RT 2008-2009

KEY FINDINGS

Total Gross Gap:

31,700 – 31,900 AF

Counties with largest gap:

El Paso (unincorporated): 22,600 AF

Increased demand: 9,250 AF

Loss of existing groundwater

supplies: 13,350 AF

Lake: 5,000 AF

Increased demand- Climax Mine,

unincorporated areas, etc

Arkansas Basin Consumptive

Use Water Needs Assessment

Arkansas Basin Roundtable

Arkansas Basin Roundtable

Additional Challenges to Meeting Demand in 2030

(i.e. need for major IP&Ps)

I. Technological, Operational, Regulatory Needs

Need for structures (e.g. SDS, Arkansas Valley Conduit)

Water quality issues

Drinking water standards

(affects wells w/ radionuclides)

Surface water quality standards

(affects RO brine disposal)

Need for additional water rights

Total Need:

Approximately 45,200 AF

II. Storage Needs(i.e. need for enlargement at Pueblo Reservoir, or elsewhere,

and long-term excess capacity contracts):

Pueblo Reservoir

Arkansas Basin Roundtable

Additional Challenges to Meeting Demand in 2030

(i.e. need for major IP&Ps)

Firm storage :

70,700 AF

Long-term excess capacity contracts

21,500 – 25,500 AF

Non-Consumptive Needs

Assessment

Configured on Hydraulic Unit

Codes (HUC’s) and their

attributes

Adopted at the April, 2008

Roundtable Meeting

WATERSHED

ATTRIBUTES

HUC 1

HUC 3

HUC 2

Non-Consumptive Needs Assessment:

HUC Methodology

Nonconsumptive Debate

Wildlife Viewing

Projects and Methods to

Meet Our Needs

Discussion at the Arkansas Basin Roundtable

November 11, 2009

Ark Roundtable “Needs”

Sustainability Values

Economic

EnvironmentalSocial

Sustainability

Is it equitable?

Is it bearable?

Is it viable?

Summary of ScoresPlans and Projects Vi

able

Bea

rabl

e

Equ

itab

le

Com

posi

te

Preferred Storage Option Plan 4.14 4.26 3.93 12.33

Round Mountain Water District well installation 4.21 4.07 3.86 12.13

Arkansas Valley Conduit 4.14 4.26 3.71 12.11

Upper Ark Conservancy Water Monitoring Devices 4.21 4.00 3.74 11.96

Tamrisk Removal 3.76 4.28 3.86 11.89

Arkansas Headwaters Diversion Improvements 4.11 3.93 3.79 11.82

Colo. State University Basin wide investigation (DSS?) 4.00 3.96 3.81 11.78

State Parks Zebra Mussel Response 3.87 4.00 3.79 11.65

Fountain Creek Flood Control and Mitigation 4.07 3.89 3.50 11.46

Surface Storage construction 3.82 3.54 3.96 11.32

Southern Delivery System 4.23 3.54 3.36 11.13

Ground Water Recharge in Upper Ark Basin 3.61 3.85 3.32 10.78

Bedload/Sediment Removal and Collection System 3.50 3.71 3.48 10.70

Zero Liquid Discharge (La Junta R.O. Brine) 3.48 3.76 3.41 10.65

Upper Black Squirrel Recharge 3.48 3.57 3.10 10.16

City of Las Animas 3.63 3.48 2.96 10.08

Stonewall Springs Quarry storage project 3.56 3.20 3.17 9.92

Lake County Water Quality Improvments 3.15 3.15 3.00 9.30

Aurora Box Creek Reservoir 3.19 2.86 2.52 8.56

Buy and Dry-up of Agricultural Water Rights 3.30 2.24 2.31 7.85

Statewide Projects Viable Bearable Equitable Comp.

Green Mtn Pumpback (Colorado River) 3.73 3.58 3.25 10.56

Blue Mesa Pumpback/Aspinall Marketable Pool 3.65 3.42 3.39 10.47

Flaming Gorge Import 3.46 3.14 3.34 9.95

Yampa River Import 3.31 3.11 3.07 9.49

Central Colorado Project (formerly Union Park) 2.30 2.48 2.54 7.31

Mississippi Import project 1.93 2.75 2.60 7.28

2009 Report

Emphasized Rotating Agricultural Fallowing as a primary “method” to meet the municipal gap

Identified concerns about the future of Colorado’s Compact Entitlement

Privileged and Confidential

Information

SWSI 2010

Arkansas Basin M&I/SSI Gap Analysis - Results

Region or County

Increase in M&I and SSI Demand (AFY)

Estimated Yield of Identified Projects and

Processes if 100% success rate (AFY)

Estimated Remaining M&I/SSI Gap after Identified Projects and Processes (AFY)

Low Gap100% IPP Success Rate

Medium GapAlternative IPP Success

Rate (60%)

High Gap Status Quo IPP Success Rate (50%)

Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High

Eastern Plains 2,000 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000

Lower Arkansas

1,000 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 100 100 100 200 200 300 300 400 1,000

Southwestern Arkansas

3,000 4,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 3,000

Upper Arkansas

19,000 22,000 26,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 7,000 10,000 14,000 8,000 11,000 15,000 10,000 13,000 17,000

Urban Counties

85,000105,00

0135,00

071,000 78,000 83,000 27,000 41,000 65,000 34,000 49,000 74,000 45,000 61,000 86,000

Total110,00

0135,00

0171,00

088,000 95,000

101,000

36,000 54,000 83,000 44,200 63,200 93,300 58,300 77,400 109,000

The Portfolio Tool

26

Statewide Perspective – Path Forward

A Public Progress Report from the Arkansas Basin

Roundtable

Colorado Springs, Colorado

June 3, 2010

Colorado's Water

Supply Future

Development of Portfolios and Evaluation of

Water Supply Strategies

• During 2008, Colorado's water community

embarked on a visioning process to address the

following questions:

– If we let Colorado's water supply continue to evolve

the way it is now, what will our state look like in

50 years?

– Is that what we want it to look like?

– If not, what can and should we do about it?

27

1,403 KAF

100 KAF

High Demand

Low Supply

Mid Demand

Mid Supply

High Demand

High Supply

Low Demand

Low Supply

Low Demand

High Supply

Mid Demand

Low Supply

Mid Demand

High Supply

1,174 KAF

1,123 KAF

944 KAF

835 KAF

769 KAF

700 KAF350 KAF

Colorado River System Supply

Sta

tew

ide D

em

an

d

29

IPP’s and the Gap

• Is there an Arkansas “Gap” in 2020?

With Passive Conservation (High)

2010 Water

Needs

2020 Water

Needs

2030 Water

Needs 2040 Water Needs

Med Med Med Med Med Med Med

Basin [AF] [AF] [AF] [AF] [AF] [AF] [AF]

Arkansas Basin 2,858 26,241 64,000 100,620 148,939 94,687 54,252

Eastern Plains (80) 549 1,381 2,045 2,708 1,797 911

Lower Arkansas (190) (161) 164 797 1,431 1,331 100

Southwestern Arkansas 13 801 1,729 2,705 3,681 1,873 1,808

Upper Arkansas 32 4,482 10,003 17,072 22,142 11,853 10,289

Urban Counties 3,083 20,570 50,722 78,000 118,977 77,833 41,144

2050 Water

Needs IPPs

Information/

Real Gap

LOW GAP SCENARIO IPPs @

100%

Ark RT 2012 Update

❖Picked up the “double counting”

❖Need for Aug water to support Ag

❖2013 Valuing Ag Conference

❖Colorado’s Water Plan Executive Order May, ‘13

Arkansas Basin Implementation Plan

Projects Database

Defining the “Gap”

Types of Gaps Larg

e M

unic

ipal

Smal

l Mun

icip

alPr

ivat

e M

unic

ipal

Agr

icul

ture

Ag

Au

gmen

tati

onA

g W

tr Q

ualit

yM

uni W

tr Q

ualit

ySu

rfac

e St

orag

eG

roun

dw

ater

dep

leti

ons

Stor

m W

ater

Qty

Stor

m W

ater

Qlt

yW

ates

hed

Hea

lth

Rip

aria

n R

ecIn

vasi

ve S

peci

es

Region

Fountain

Lower Ark

Upper Ark

Huerfano

Purgatoire

Southern High Plains

Eastern High Plains

Holbrook Weir Update(2 slides)

Holbrook 2 Stage Weir Construction Update as of 5 Mar 2017

Telemetry Bldg.

with Antenna

Looking Upstream on

5 March 2017, Slide 1 of 2.

2 Stage

Weir

Staff

40 ft. Foot Bridge for

Water Flow Calibration

Note:

95% Done!

Looking Downstream while Standing

on the Footbridge, 5 March 2017,

Slide 2 of 2.

Note:

The Job is NOT Done

untilThe Paperwork is

Complete & Approved!