Laserfiche WebLink
<br />". <br /> <br />March 19, 2004 <br /> <br />To: Sue Morea, Rick Brown <br />From: David Nickum <br />Re: South Platte SWSI roundtable <br /> <br />As you move forward with your supply and demand projections and identification of <br />alternatives, I wanted to share the following comments for the SWSI effort. If you have <br />questions about any of these items, feel free to call or email me. <br /> <br />(1) Agricultural demand. Your presentation indicates that future agricultural demand <br />will be assumed to be the same as current demand, absent other direction from the <br />roundtables. As was discussed at the roundtable meeting, this assumption is not sound <br />for the South Platte basin. There will be three major classes of current ag water users that <br />will be phased out over the coming years - those using wells who are unable to augment <br />their depletions (as described by Tom Cech), those whose water rights are bought by <br />cities and transferred to M&I use, and those whose land is displaced directly by <br />urbanization. Hopefully other members of the roundtable more involved in ag water use <br />will be able to give you guidance on how to estimate the magnitude of these demand <br />reductions. For the last (land displacement), you could probably use the rate of historic <br />displacement in order to estimate future losses of irrigated cropland. Moreover, <br />intermptible supply agreements will further change ag demand, at least for the years in <br />which such agreements result in temporary transfers of water to M&I use. It is probably <br />wise to provide a high and low estimate of future ag demand to reflect uncertainty on all <br />of these fronts. <br /> <br />(2) M&I demand. You indicated at the SWSI roundtable that some "baseline" <br />conservation would be factored into demand projections - representing ongoing <br />conservation programs, retrofitting of fixtures, etc.. Based on historic rates of decline in <br />per capita use, I would suggest that you work with an estimate of 5-10% decline in per <br />capita use rates per decade, again offering high and low estimates to reflect uncertainty in <br />the demand figures. More aggressive conservation measures should be included among <br />the alternatives. Don Wocjik of We stem Resource Advocates would be an excellent <br />source for information on conservation strategies and their results from other <br />communities in the west. Finally, it is important to acknowledge the role of demand <br />management in dealing with drought periods. Municipal providers have a track record of <br />being able to substantially reduce demands (up to 30%) in periods of severe drought <br />through a variety of measures.. <br /> <br />(3) Supply estimates. I have gotten the impression - hopefully wrongly - that you are <br />looking at the "gap" needing to be addressed by alternatives as the difference between <br />present day demands and future demands. In reality, many future demands have already <br />been addressed by water users who have projects and water rights in place that are not <br />being fully exercised yet but will be in the future. In accurately portraying supply vs.. <br />demand for the basin, it will be critical that you identify the reasonably certain available <br />water supply for the future, a figure that will be greater than current deliveries.. <br />