PUB00004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Meeting Water Demand Without Gunnison Water o c. Interruptible supply arrangements Interruptible supply arrangements, like dry-year leases, allow cities temporari- ly to obtain for municipal needs water that would otherwise be earmarked for agricul- tural use. From an economic standpoint, such leases are beneficial to both irrigators and the cities.'" Especially when faced with a dry year that will see shortfalls in water deliveries to their farms and ranches, irrigators can benefit from obtaining cash for their water when growing crops may be a risky venture. For cities, leasing can be far less expensive than developing their own new supplies to meet drought-year con- ditions. From a public-policy perspective, dry-year leases are often seen as more desirable than transactions which permanently dry up irrigated agriculture. The MWSI estimated that "high quality water potentially available for inter- ruptible supply arrangements is approximately 190,000 AF."'" Elsewhere, however, the MWSI notes South Platte Basin dry year supply potential for interruptible arrangements may be as high as 495,000 AF,'" simply a staggering amount of water for future municipal supply. There are a number of impediments to dry-year leasing on the Front range, including the irrigators may fear that they will have been construed to have aban- doned their water rights if they enter into such leases. These and other legal impedi- ments can be addressed by the General Assembly. To implement dry-year leasing on a large-scale basis may require additional storage upstream of irrigated lands on the Front Range. If so, the true cost of dry-year leases will exceed the price paid by urban water providers for these leases. d. Minor systems integration This category of supply was separately enumerated in the MWSI to include ideas not adequately developed for inclusion in the report at the time of its initial scoping.'"o Opportunities explored in MWSI include: effluent management between Northeastern and Northwestern metropolitan sub-regions; joint storage projects for regulation of Windy Gap and Moffat systems with use of Colorado Big Thompson facilities; and the creation of a market for conserved water. The conservative conclu- sion presented in MWSI is that projects listed under this title would supply about 20,000 AFA, however, MWSI also recognized that these opportunities could provide up to 30,000 to 50,000 AFA of municipal water at build-out.'" C. Conclusion Even if only about one-seventh of the apparent potential of Front Range water use efficiency measures can be harvested in the next two to three decades, there is no market for Gunnison Basin water in the Denver Metro area. Together with the enor- mous legal, environmental, cost and practicality problems confronting an import of Gunnison water to the Front Range, these effective measures suggest that Front Range providers should abandon the notion of importing water from the Gunnison. Indeed, importing Gunnison water to the Front Range is truly a pipe-dream in more ways than one. Gunnison Basin Water .45.