Laserfiche WebLink
South Platte Basin <br />Eric Wilkinson <br />Status Quo <br />• General - find common denominators, themes, concepts, and goals. Take info, pull <br />out common themes and goals, and then give to technical team to develop. Then <br />bring back to discuss trade-offs. Hopefully, some common concepts throughout the <br />state. <br />• Front Range - most of the M&I supplies will come from agriculture. If projects using <br />unappropriated water are not done in next 10 years, these projects won't happen. <br />• Urban development along Hwy. 85 will occur north to Kersey. Metro area <br />development is not on irrigated land. <br />• Environmental problem with brine disposal. <br />• How far east will Aurora go? <br />• Urban development will occur east to Beebe Draw and Box Elder and north to <br />Kersey. <br />• Beyond Hardin will be the only remaining agriculture - all relying on return flows. <br />• Drying up of groundwater along developed areas since no groundwater deep <br />percolation as a result of M&I irrigation water conservation. <br />• Dying of trees as a result of M&I water conservation and reduced lawn watering. <br />• Environmental impact on river from rescued M&I return flows. <br />• Reduced base flows. Hope to manage groundwater and surface water interactions <br />better via SPDSS. Better management of urban forest, i.e. phreatophytes for supply <br />& flood control. May also hold true for Arkansas. <br />• Front Range mountain communities using fractured bedrock groundwater will have <br />supply issues. <br />• CO/West Slope - Attempt to save water will sacrifice agriculture before <br />streamflows. Non-consumptive needs analysis will tie up water; and lead to <br />agricultural conversion. <br />• More growth in US energy development in next 20-30 years, then go belly up as <br />alternative energy sources found. Where will energy get water? Development of <br />energy conditional rights will impact streamflows. Front Range transmountain junior <br />rights may be impacted. <br />• Coal-fired power for oil shale not doable for 12,000 MW demand forecast for oil <br />shale. <br />• Question whether oil shale will be developed full throttle. <br />• Will citizenry tolerate the additional power plants? <br />20 <br />I:\INTERBASIN COMPACT COMMITTEEWISIONS FOR COLORADO WATER SUPPLY FUTURE\RESPONSES TO VISIONING AND MARCH MEETING\IBCC REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS.DOC