Colorado_BRT_Mtg_2_Summary

• Basin: Colorado
• Title: Meeting Summary 2
• Date: 1/13/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Summaries

Colorado Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2
Meeting Summary

future water needs (i.e., applied to any "gap" between projected demands and supplies). SWSI
also anticipates that "gaps" may exist even after existing efforts are implemented, and that
additional water supply options may need to be developed.

John Rehring presented a preliminary draft list of project options, as identified by BRT members
and project advisors, for meeting water needs in the basin. These options will be cataloged, then
"packaged together" into alternatives for meeting the basin's needs. The project "tiering"
definitions were reviewed, with Tier 1 projects being those that are identified by the project
sponsor(s) as being on a direct path toward implementation. Tier 2 and 3 projects are further
from implementation, either based on their status (planning or conceptual level identification of
a water management solution) or on the basis of issues associated with their implementation
(e.g., significant disagreement from within the BRT on whether/how to proceed with the
option, lack of funding, legal or institutional issues, etc.)

Tier 1 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 by the 2030 planning year, 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. Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects
will be evaluated in various combinations by packaging them into alternatives for consideration
and discussion by the BRT.lrhe preliminary d~stdiscussed by the BRT members at th~
!meeting is a22ended to this meeting summaryJ

Feedback from the BRT members follows.

. One participant asked for clarification on options that seem to be somewhere between Tier 1
and Tier 2. In those cases, SWSI will defer to the project sponsor's preference.
. The Coordinated Facilities Study (CFS) evaluated options geared toward a specific purpose;
it may be worth looking at the "non-selected" options from this study in SWSI to see if those
options could effectively serve other needs.
. Owens Creek project should be Tier 3
. CFS options may not be Tier 1
. One option to consider is the removal of the Shoshone Plant call in times of drought; this is
not near implementation
. It was suggested that the SWSI team contact project sponsors to obtain their perspective on
project tiering
. Fraser Valley Water Supply - all options listed should be Tier 3
- Several options were evaluated in this study, all as different ways of achieving a single
objective; only one project would be selected from this list to meet this need
- Mitigation components should be included
- Alsbury Dam is complete and should be deleted from the list
. Eagle River Basin issues - "growth control" as outlined in the Eagle River Basin Issues report
should be Tier 2 or 3
. Significant discussion centered on the definition of project tiers in SWSI. Some options are
clearly Tier I, such as a project that is in design or construction, but there are several
initiatives underway (e.g., Upper Colorado [UPCO] study, Eagle River discussions) where

CDIVI

4

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