S6_11-15-04

• Basin: Statewide
• Title: SWSI Phase 1 Report - Section 6 Water Needs Assessment
• Date: 11/15/2004
• Author: CWCB
• SWSI - Doc Type: Final Report

Section 6
Water Needs Assessment
Funding for the Arkansas Valley Pipeline, which would
improve drinking water quality and reduce transit losses
for the Lower Arkansas Basin communities, is currently
being sought at the federal level. The towns along the
mainstem of the Arkansas River downstream of the City
of Pueblo divert from alluvial wells or from tributary
surface water supplies. In addition to local water rights,
these towns also have access to Fry-Ark Project
allocations and return flows from the use of project water.
Stream transit losses are assessed from Pueblo
Reservoir to the downstream location and water quality is
impacted by minerals and salts in the river channel and
return flow as the water flows down the Arkansas River.
Fountain and Security are both participating in the
Southern Delivery System with Colorado Springs Utilities
to help meet their future demands. In contrast,
unincorporated northern EI Paso County needs
renewable sources to meet future demands as it is
currently 100 percent on non-renewable, non-tributary
groundwater. If that area's existing non-tributary sources
fail or become technically or economically infeasible to
continue to use as well yields decline, the amount
needed ("the gap" between supply and demand) will
become significantly larger in the northern portion of the
basin.
The Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District
(UAWCD), which provides augmentation for wells in a
portion of the upper basin, will be challenged to develop
the CU water rights and storage required to meet the
augmentation requirements for these wells. The upper
basin, like many headwater areas throughout the state, is
projected to experience high growth rates. Augmentation
to existing or proposed environmental and recreation
water rights, such as CWCB instream flow rights and
RICDs and senior agricultural and M&I rights, will likely
require the construction of storage in upper areas of
tributaries. Economies of scale are generally not present
in small reservoir construction and the engineering,
permitting, and construction costs will tax the ability to
provide for augmentation water at a reasonable cost. The
acquisition of agricultural rights will likely be part of the
augmentation supplies for the UAWCD due to limits on
the availability of Fry-Ark allocations.
Agricultural shortages are prevalent and expected to
continue throughout the entire basin, as described in
Section 5. Roundtable feedback suggested that these
shortages can be very difficult to address, given the
water supply limitations outlined in the Arkansas River
Compact, a general lack of additional supplies, and the
ability of agricultural beneficiaries of projects designed to
address their needs to pay for the required infrastructure.
Further detail regarding the Identified Projects and
Processes and areas of gap for the Arkansas Basin are
provided in Table 6-4.
Table 6-4 Detailed Identified Projects and Processes forthe Arkansas Basin
.
='E
. ..
Baca Springfield 0 N Assumed that non-tributary -
roundwater will meet future needs.
Bent Las Animas 0 N Arkansas Valley Pipeline would Arkansas Valley Pipeline Study and
improve water qualiiy and reduce Arkansas Basin Roundtable
transit losses. There are concerns feedback
over future supplies as Fry-Ark may
be oversubscribed, and return flows
and firm ield less than lanned.
Bents Fort Water 0 N Arkansas Valley Pipeline would Arkansas Valley Pipeline Study and
Association improve water qualiiy and reduce Arkansas Basin Roundtable
transit losses. There are concerns feedback
over future supplies as Fry-Ark may
be oversubscribed, and return flows
and firm ield less than lanned.
r~
S:\REPORIIWORD PROCESSING\REPORllS6 11-8-04.DOC 6-15