Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0011U1 <br /> <br />RECEf. . <br />DEe 15 1999 <br /> <br />Colorado 1-\1-,.., <br />G:>nSefVaticn &':;ra <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />December 13, 1999 <br /> <br />TO: Scott Balcomb, Esq. <br />FROM: Eric Kuhn Srro ~ <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Upper Basin Depletion Schedule <br /> <br />Thank you for asking for comments on the Upper Basin depletion schedule, In general, <br />depletion schedules are always a blind shot, but as' you are aware, the State of Colorado has <br />significantly upgraded its information base on Colorado River water use through the CRDSS, <br />Colorado projections are clearly an improvement over past efforts, The other three states may lag <br />Colorado in this arena. <br /> <br />My understanding is that the CWCB staff (Randy Seaholm) prepares these projections by <br />looking at sub-regions within the Colorado River Basin and then estimating future demands by <br />examining unusedcapacit)i' in existing projects, plans for new projects, etc, As an alternative, Dave <br />Merritt has plotted Colorado's annual use as reported by the Bureau of Reclamation in the 5-year <br />consumptive uses and losses reports, He has prepared plots for the 1971-1990 period (20 years) and <br />1971-1995 period (25 years), I've attached copies of both. It is interesting to note that the 1991- <br />1995 period showed significantly more variability than the first 20 years. Using their data, Dave's <br />graphs include a simple linear regression or trend line, Trend lines can also be used to project future <br />depletions. Unlike Randy's project- by- project approach, the trend line approach assumes the future <br />will look like the past. There are no project- specific assumptions, <br /> <br />The bottom line is that both methods predict that Colorado will have substantially used its <br />Colorado River apportionment by about the year 2020. <br /> <br />These projections raise 'some interesting policy questions: <br />