Section5_Gap_11-7-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 5 Addressing the Water Supply Gap Technical Roundtable Review of Table 5-2 shows that all river basins have agricultural shortages (i.e., the difference between the ideal amount of water needed (IWR) and the actual amount ofwater delivered (WSL). The TRT was asked to help refine which areas of the state face "critical" agricultural shortages and how we might define this. Many agricultural users have developed successful business plans to deal with current supplies while others may be struggling as a result of shortages. It is clear that areas of the South Platte, Arkansas, and Rio Grande Basins are suffering critical shortages that are resulting in lost agricultural production and impacts to the local economy and farms and ranches. In addition, activities M~eI providers undertake to fulfill their future demands and address the gap will have an effect on agricultural, environmental, and recreational needs. Separate TRTs were formed to address these issues and are discussed further in their respective sections in this report Key items to be considered when addressing the M~eI gap are: ~ The potential decrease in irrigated acreage and its impact on the local economy (see Figure 3-1) in Section 3. ~ Impact on stream flows and lake levels that support tourism and the environment and are benefits enjoyed by and important to our citizens. ~ Environmental impacts on reduced return flows and/or water quality. ~ Conflicts over water use can lead to delays in the implementation of IPPs and increase costs. 5.2 Summary of Major Discussion During Addressing the Gap Technical Roundtable Meetings One of the major concerns brought up at the Gap TRT meetings that affect all basins is the uncertainty associated with the IPPs. Since the completion of the SWSI Report, providers have indicated increased levels of risk and uncertainty associated with implementation of their plans and projects. Figure 5-5 shows the increase in the gap at IPP uncertainty levels of 25 percent and 50 percent. If 25 percent of the IPPs do not successfully deliver the projected water, the gap increases from 118,200 AFY to 246,100 AFY. At 50 percent IPP incompletion rate, the gap increases to 374,100 AFY statewide. In the South Platte Basin alone, four major projects Northern Integrated Supply Plan (NISP), Windy Gap Firming Project (WGF), Moffat Firming, and Halligan-Seaman Reservoir Expansion are still in the NEPA process and have yet to receive approval. Figure 5-6 shows the large impact the failure of any of these projects would make in the gap. 5.2.1 Summary of Gap Areas Statewide Basin specific discussion and key points are summarized below by major river basin. The water supply gap in several subbasins in each major basin was quantified and is tabulated in Figures 5-7 to 5-12. The reader should note the tables only reflect the supply need to fill the gap. The entire supply need is shown in the small box. 5-6 FINAL DRAFT