SJD_BRT_Mtg_2_Summary

• Basin: Southwest
• Title: Meeting Summary 2
• Date: 2/10/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Summaries

Dolores/San Juan/San Miguel Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2
Meeting Summary

. The Southern Ute tribe may pursue mineral development along the La Plata River, which
may consume additional water in the future.
. Well use in La Plata County is widespread, with typical per-capita use rates lower than the
basin average. There are many second homes in La Plata County, which may also affect per-
capita use estimates because the water used in these homes increases demand but second
home owners are generally not counted in local census data.
. It was noted that there are springs-based stock ponds in the area, and that the water feeding
these must come from somewhere; with a large number of these stock ponds, this could be a
significant component of basin water supplies.
. One participant requested clarification that demands (including agricultural) are based on
the basin of use, not the basin of origin. The state's Decision Support System (DSS) accounts
for basin of use vs. basin of origin.
. Another BRT member pointed out that the period of record for irrigated acreage for this basin
may go beyond the 1975 - 1990 range shown. CDM will check on the availability of additional
data with the state's DSS team.
. The Dolores project came online in 1990; therefore, its consumptive use is not included in the
preliminary numbers of consumptive use presented at today's BRT meeting.
One participant noted that in a recent presentation at the Colorado Water Congress
meeting, the presenter stated that 88 percent of water use in Colorado is agricultural,
and that every 1 percent of this demand could serve 1 million more population. The
participant asked for confirmation of this value. The SWSI team is evaluating these types
of figures, and another BRT member calculated that 1 percent might provide water for
something more like 500,000 additional people.
. For land use changes, one BRT member questioned the residential consumptive use per acre,
and contemplated the net difference between residential and agricultural consumptive per-
acre use.
. It was noted that 1996 and 2002 were critical drought years in this basin, and that those years'
data should be included in the period of record. This would show more critical shortage
scenarios for agriculture. It was suggested that a 1991 to 2003 period of record be used to
better show the average case, and another participant noted that it may not make sense to
plan for the "extreme" years only.
. A BRT member asked about inclusion of environmental and recreational flows in the gap
analysis. It was noted that the DSS includes CWCB adjudicated instream flow water rights
and factors them into the supply analysis. It was further noted that additional flows (i.e.,
above the CWCB adjudicated amount) can be proposed by BRT members as an option. The
BRT member pointed out that the Colorado Water Trust map (from approx. 2003) could be
used as a starting point for these options. Discussion concluded with a note that this map
may indicate important reaches, but it does not indicate specific flow numbers targeted for
those reaches.
. A BRT member encouraged the SWSI team to recognize the 5-year CWCB instream flow
work plan.
. It was noted that the flow agreement on Elbert Creek maintains flow below Cascade
Reservoir (also known as Electra Lake).
. Another participant stated that there is, and will continue to be, some level of converting
agricultural lands over for M&I demand. However, converting the land doesn't automatically
mean the agricultural water can be used for M&I purposes.

CDIVI

4

SJD BRT Mtg #2 Summary.doc 4/16/2004