Minutes Sep 2007 CBRT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f. The Water Availability Study should be coordinated with other water studies. Wayne Vanderscheure. The Water Availability Study, Consumptive Use Study, Non-Consumptive Use Study, and Energy Needs Analysis (all of which are being fiinded by CWCB) all must be integrated. g. The Water Availability Study hasn't been completely fiinded. Ray Alvarado, CWCB staff member who is assigned to the Water Availability Study, stated that it will be based on the software model CDSS, the Colorado River Decision Support System. The CDSS was developed for $5 nullion, and the Water Availability Study will fine tune the CDSS. Ray has applied for $500,000 additional funding from CWCB to complete Phase I. h. Funds haven't been appropriated for Phase IL Plul Overeynder questioned whether Phase I could be completed and that there no money appropriated to do Phase IL This is significant because Phase I could estimate more water is available for further consumption than Phase II might suggest, since Phase I does not consider conditional water rights already decreed. Ray Alvarado said that the CWCB Annual Projects Bill could provide the funding the complete the study. Ray has requested $500,000 from the CWCB Stn~ctures fiend. Eric Hecox said additional funding is likely since Representative Kathleen Curry and Senator Jim Isgar support this process. Groundwater pumping should be considered. Mark Fuller questioned why groundwater wasn't being studied as part of the Water Availability Study; Ray Alvarado mentioned that groundwater only accounted for 5% of available water in the Colorado Basin. Yet, I~en Neubecker noted the table on page 13 indicates that as of 2030 SWSI predicts that only 4 to 10% of the state's water is not being used, so groundwater in Colorado equals the amount of water left. Ross Bechtel, the CWCB software programmer that developed CDSS, stated that homeowner consumption is already accounted for in the CDSS, and it doesn't matter whether the source is groundwater or not. The Water Availability Study isn't considering water quality Louis Meyer voiced concerns that the Water Availability Study would justify further East Slope diversions. Developers will assume a high risk of further curtailment because once used, water becomes a right. The study is not considering water quality, or socio-economic and quality of life issues. The Water Availability Study is not considering increased water treatment costs to municipalities since reduced flows cause concentrations of selenium, salinity, endocrine disn~pters and other contanunants. The scheduled 4 weeks to review the results of the Phase 1 is not enough time. k. Reduced irrigation flows will affect groundwater pumping_ Rachel Richards is concerned that shifting irrigation to municipal use will reduce groundwater recharge, affecting homeowners that rely on groundwater wells. She echoed Mark Fuller's concern that groundwater supplies should be studied Seiuor rights could be curtailed in multi-year droughts. Plul Overeynder and Dave Merritt conunented that new developments can put senior water rights at risk. Once diverted to the East Slope, water can't be returned to the West Slope and this could cause senor water rights to be curtailed in multi-year droughts. Risk is being shifted from junior to senior appropriators, since senior rights will lose out in the event of a Compact Call. Ray Alvarado stated this would be considered in Phase II. I: AInterbasnl Compact Committee~Basin Roundtables\Colorado~IVlimrtes~2007~Minutes Sep 2007 CBRT.doc 4 10~.