My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Front Range Water Council Response
CWCB
>
Interbasin Compact Committee
>
DayForward
>
Front Range Water Council Response
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 11:53:54 AM
Creation date
9/17/2008 12:44:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Interbasin Compact Committee
Title
Front Range Water Council Response to Visioning
Date
2/26/2008
Interbasin CC - Doc Type
Correspondence/Memos
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Memorandum <br />To: Harris Sherman, Executive Director, DNR <br />From: Front Range Water Council <br />Date: February 26, 2008 <br />Subject: Visions for Colorado's Water supply Future <br />The following comments on the questions posed in your January 15, 2008 memorandum <br />regarding "Visions for Colorado's Water Supply Future" are submitted on behalf of the Front <br />Range Water Council. Council members include the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy <br />District, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado Springs Utilities, <br />Aurora Water, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Denver Water, and the Twin Lakes Reservoir <br />and Canal Company. Individual comments may be submitted as a supplement thereto. Please <br />keep in mind that these comments originate from, and are intended to provide the perspective of, <br />Front Range transbasin diverters. As urged in your memorandum, an attempt was made to <br />address the questions wearing a "statewide hat." <br />L What will the different regions of Colorado look like in 50 years under the current <br />approach to water supply? <br />It may be counter productive to examine the issues from this perspective, as it tends to <br />encourage a balkanization of interests rather than a statewide perspective driven by broader <br />economic, social and environmental considerations. That said, the following observations are <br />offered. <br />A. Front Range: It is postulated that the Front Range may see the following: <br />• There may be more conversions of ag water to municipal use (interruptible and firm), <br />though this will primarily be due to: (i) urbanization and (ii) agriculture's desire to sell <br />water for a variety of economic and demographic reasons. However, these transfers may <br />be limited by available exchange capacity and the absence of delivery infrastructure. The <br />demand for water along the Front Range will cause the market price for agricultural water <br />to significantly increase, making it more attractive for agricultural water rights owners to <br />sell their water rights. <br />• In the South Platte Basin, irrigated agriculture will cease to exist in that portion of the <br />basin upstream of the Kersey gage, including the major tributaries to the South Platte. <br />• Addressing soil conservation and land management for large areas of previously irrigated <br />land will become a more significant issue in the South Platte basin, especially during <br />droughts. Salinity levels may increase and control strategies will need to be developed. <br />• Enhanced conservation measures will be employed, including more water "reclamation" <br />projects for both potable and nonpotable use.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.