Rio_Grande_BRT_Mtg_2_Summary

• Basin: Rio Grande
• Title: Meeting Summary 2
• Date: 2/12/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Summaries

Rio Grande Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2
Meeting Summary

Possible system losses.
Per capita park area and other irrigated public areas may be higher in smaller towns.
The City of Alamosa noted that its domestic use is about 135 gpcd (excluding parks
and similar irrigated areas); it was also noted that Adams State College is on the city
water system and this may drive per capita numbers up since census information
generally does not include college attendees.
. It was noted that power plants use a lot of water, and that can affect per capita numbers
significantly.
. One participant noted that the proposed Lewis & Clark commercial bottled water plant
(about 2 AFY of use) would be a self-supplied industrial user.
. The group discussed the applicability of conservation and reuse to Rio Grande Basin; the
basin's Compact obligations current use of native in-basin supplies is limited based on
available surface water in "normal/ average" or "below average" years. This may be a case
of "taking water from someone else" rather than a viable option.
. It was noted that if the current drought conditions persist, it could significantly affect
supply; the SWSI team will consider this as one possible planning scenario.
. It is difficult to define what a "normal" supply is; the last 20 years were much drier in the
Rio Grande Basin than the period of record (112-year) average.
. The baseline M&I demand projections prepared by the SWSI team incorporate baseline
per capita conservation. Additional conservation and demand reduction can be proposed
by BRT members as an alternative if appropriate.
. It was noted by one participant that 1.21 AF / acre is about the minimum consumptive use
value for the types of crops grown in the Rio Grande Basin.
. One participant asked whether the SWSI demand numbers include "user-defined"
irrigated acres from the Rio Grande DSS; the concern is that in the Rio Grande DSS, some
of the 632K acres were identified on imagery as being irrigated, but some of those may not
actually be irrigated.
. Another participant stated that the irrigated acreage numbers presented for this basin may
be high, as some Saguache County acreage is not irrigated. It was also noted that pasture
irrigation does not necessarily occur every year.
. The concept of multiple or successive uses was discussed. Based on the numbers
presented (gross diversions vs. consumptive use), about 750,000 AFY would be returned
to the stream (via returns, recharge, irrigation efficiency/delivery efficiency).
. The stated evaporation rate of 3.5 feet/year is high considering the elevations in the basin;
SWSI team members noted that this value came from the State Engineer's Office. The SWSI
team will also investigate which year the GIS coverage for lake and reservoir evaporation
was developed in.
. Another participant stated that the area presented (16,464 acres) for evaporation may be
high depending on whether wetlands and similar features are included.
. A BRT member reiterated their interest in seeing enhanced stream flows; the Colorado
Water Trust has prepared flow recommendations, shown on a map. Christine Canaly
offered to send information to the SWSI team.

CDIVI

4

Rio Grande BRT Mtg #2 Summary.doc 4/16/2004