LPPD000265

• Contract/PO #: C153756
• Contractor Name: Lower Arkansas Water Management Association
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 67
• County: Prowers
• Bill Number: SB 96-124
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

allocated or supplied) 49.96% (9,019/18,049), sole-source flood users receive 16.99%
(3,068/18,049) and sole-source sprinkler users receive 32.75% (5,912/18,049). These
percentages are examples of "water-allocation factors." Under the CI allocation method,
the water-allocation factor for each user is fIxed for all years. Consider a 2nd dry year:
LAMW A has 15,000 af of water in the replacement pool. Table 3 shows that
supplemental users are allocated 49.97% of this total, or 7,496 af, sole-source flood users
are allocated 17% of this total, or 2,550 af, and sole-source sprinkler users are allocated
32.75% of this total, or 4,913 af.

A result of this allocation method is that, in any year, curtailment is equalized across all
groups. For example, Table 3 shows that (relative to normal-year allocations)
supplemental users fac~ a curtailment in a 2nd dry year of 16.89% [(9,019-7,496)/9,019].
All other users face the same curtailment of 16.89% in a 2nd dry year. Curtailment faced
by individual users equals the total curtailment of available total water supplies [( 18,049-
15,000)/18,049].

In a normal year, gross supply of replacement water is greater than demand and,
therefore, 0% curtailment is needed. Excess supplies of 4,111 af are stored in JMR for the
possibility of dry conditions in the following year. If the year following a normal year is
in fact dry (i.e., a rt dry year), with the stored water there is actually an increase in net
supplies available (19, III af of net supply in a 1st dry year vs. 18,049 afin a normal
year). Table 3 shows that in a I sl dry year situation all users face the same negative
curtailment (-5.88%). For example, supplemental users receive 9,550 af of replacement
water (again 49.97% of the total) as compared to 9,019 afin a nonnal year. Note that in a
I st dry year ~ituation all available water is fully allocated and, therefore, no water is put
in storage as reselve for the following year.

The dry condition increases the demand for plUllping by supplemental users. Although
the increased supplies available in a 1 st dry year help, they do not match the actual
increase in demand for the supplemental group. These users desire to pump 74,949 af.
With available replacement supplies, they are allowed to p1ll11p only 50,799 af. As a
result, this method imposes a demand shortfall on this group of32.22%[(74,949- 50,799)1
74,949].

I

While the C I allocation method equally distributes supply decreases (or increases) across
all users and is the simplest operationally, it may not be perceived as fair. As noted,
supplemental water users will increase their demand/desire for pumping from 49,966 af
to 74,949 as their surface sources are reduced. Holding the supplemental user to 50,799
af imposes considerable demand shortfall on this group relative to other users. Here,
supplemental users face a demand shortfall of 32.22% while both groups of sole-source
users face a demand shortfall of7.58%.

I
I
I
I

In a 2nd (consecutive) dry year situation there is no excess water in storage. Curtailment
to all groups is increased to 16.89%. Again, demand ShOltfall is the highest for the
supplemental users (46.80% vs. 27.46% for both sole-source users groups).

EnWater Resource Consultants September 5, 1997 Final Report

25