South_Platte_BRT_Mtg_2_Summary

• Basin: South Platte
• Title: Meeting Summary 2
• Date: 2/25/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Summaries

South Platte Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2
Meeting Summary

moving forward. This type of a solution could be a specific project, or the anticipated outcome
of an ongoing planning process.

Near-term options will be documented as meeting a particular need in the basin. For purposes
of SWSI, it will be assumed that these options will be in place some time prior to 2030, and the
resulting effects (e.g., delivery of water to the project beneficiaries) will be applied to the
projected "gap," if any, between future basin supplies and demands. Mid- and long-term
options will be evaluated in various combinations by packaging them into alternatives for
consideration and discussion by the BRT. The preliminary draft list discussed by the BRT
members at the meeting is appended to this meeting summary.

Feedback from the BRT members follows. For purposes of BRT2, participants continued to use
the previously-defined Tier 1/2/3 approach, recognizing that this will later be reformatted to
near-, mid-, and long-term options. The option identification listed on the preliminary options
catalog distributed to the BRT members (e.g., option SPl, SP2) was also referenced in the
discussion of options.

. A BRT member noted that gravel pit lakes have potential recreational benefits (e.g., fishing).
. Another participant stated that the Greeley /Ft. Collins Seaman & Halligan reservoirs can be
operated in tandem via a joint operations plan, and that doing so has potential environmental
benefits.
. Paul Flack noted that he has additional information on gravel lakes, and suggested that the
group also look at Chatfield reallocation, Cherry Creek reallocation.
. Dick Stenzel will add Ovid to the list of options for consideration.
. A participant stated that we may be overlooking the potential of the very large and extensive
South Platte alluvial aquifer, and that the South Platte River may cease to run year-round
without proper augmentation. The participant urged BRT members to keep in mind that
irrigation "efficiency" would cut back on returns to river, and there is a need to maintain
return flows.
. Another option to consider is re-timing wells or augmentation of wells.
. A participant suggested that recharge options, including deep well injection, be explored.
. A BRT member noted that the CWCB instream flow work plan should be considered when
developing environmental alternatives.
. Another participant suggested that the group should consider enlarging the inlets to
reservoirs, not just enlarge the reservoir itself. However, there are timing issues associated
with this concept, and there are no current proponents known to the group.
. A BRT member suggested that the group consider the ability to "disaggregate" some of the
broader concepts brought forth into more specific ideas (i.e., gravel pit storage, agriculture
transfer, reuse).
. The group discussed ditch lining, wondering whether anyone is currently proposing this
option. A BRT member urged participants to remember that seepage water goes to other
uses / users.
. Another BRT member suggested that the group clearly distinguish supply options from
infrastructure maintenance, and that we identify what (if any) new yield would be associated
with each.

CDIVI

6

South Platte BRT Mtg #2 Summary.doc 4/16/2004