30 ‎(3)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/21/2008
• Description: IWMD Section - Presentation of Agricultural Water Conservation Paper
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

T"l~ere is a ctuestion ~~~hcther the tool for evaluatin;~ par¢ial eoitsutmpti~-e use
savinf7s is ``reffir~ecl0sietaile~fl sufficientlg• to d+~terAnine impacts other than ®n a
plannina/k~asin scale." Tl1is issuL identified b+~ Ci•~~CF3 staf'~C.;eems .a be totall}• at odds
~+•ith the intent of this grant. pragrarn. Criteria 2 states that the proposed prajectfpragrvn
should "produce infannatian that is transferable and transparent to other users and other
areas of the state (i.e.. ++•outd pro~'ide an example "temptate" ar roadmap to others
wishing to explore aiterlati~-e transfer methods).``temphasis addedr lf' that is the case;
why is this project being criticized as not being detailed enough and possibly being
applicable on a basin scale? The entire intent of the proposed methodology for
developing a means to quantif}~ consumptive use savings on lands that are still partially
irrigated is to provide that exact roadmap; bath far this project, and for other potential
projects in the South Platte andlor Arkansas River basins. Therefore, we see that as a
positi`te aspect of the PWSD application, certainly not a negative issue. See pages 6; 11,
12, l~, 1 ~, and Phase ~ of the project (pages 2~4-26) where this issue is discussed in the
application.
The ability and means to deliver transferable ~~•ater back to the metro area ~r•as
not adequately addressed. PWSD has completed apre-feasibility level evaluation of the
means to deliver water back to the metro area, and specifically to Rueter-Hess Reservoir.
PWSD funded all of this w~ark as a preliminary to the joint PWSD/Colorado State project
for which funding is sought as part of this grant application. PWSD needed to know, at a
pre-feasibility level, whether the project is likely economically feasible prior to
proceeding with this project. That work is complete and advancement of the design to a
feasibility level study is not warranted at this time until it is better understood what the
quantities and timing would be of water pumping (see page 16). Furthermore, it is
explicitly stated in the criteria for the grant applications that '`design and construction of
infrastructure is not an eligible activity." Penalizing the PWSD application for not
addressing infrastructure issues seems to be mis-guided given the explicit exclusion of
infrastructure design in the guidance document. Furtherniore, PWSD is more than willing
to share our pre-feasibility design ~~•ith the ClVGB to demonstrate that PWSD has
adequately addressed the ability and means to deliver this water back to the Front Range.
Water quality and erchanile potential ~~~ere not e:ramined as Hart of the
application. Water quality. and the need for treatment. +ras evaluated in the pre-
feasibility study, as described in the previous paragraph. P!'l~`SD is wrilling to share these
preliminan~ design data with the CWCB. There is no exchange envisioned as part of this
project as P!ljSD anticipates that it will have sufficient water rights and storage rights to
manage the delivery of this +vater +~7thout exchange.
It is not clear hori• the tasks identified in the lVSRA grant request b~~ PWSD
are different from the tasks identified in this Banc request. Again, +ve are baffled by
this comment from staff +~~hen the table on page 29 of the I'lVSD application clearly
shows where the Vl'SRA grant money is going to be used versus the money being
requested as part of this grant application. That table +yas added to the application
explicitly to deflect any questions about a~~erlap of the t+~~o grant applications.