PUB00047 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Final Draft - Preferred Storage Options Plan Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District June 8. 2000 approximately 72,400 afwill occur in the CSU service area. The "shortfall" for CSU is the need to develop additional storage and delivery capacity to allow existing water rights to be fully used. For the FV A entities and several other cities and water districts, earlier work assumed that future shortfalls would be met by developing local supplies. This may require storage equal to three times the projected shortfall volume. Pueblo, Pueblo West, and St. Charles Mesa have identified future storage needs, despite the apparent absence of projected water supply shortfalls in the GEl Study. Storage is reported to be needed by these entities to improve the management of developed supplies and to provide drought protection. A summary of municipal storage needs is presented below: Municipal Entity Storage (at) CSU 45,000 Other FVA Entities 22,000 Florence 2,300 Other Entities West of Pueblo 3,700 Pueblo Board of Water Works 20.000 Pueblo West Metropolitan Distnct 5.500 SI. Charles Mesa 3,600 Public Service Company of Colorado 5,000 Total 107,100 During the GEl Study, participants recognized that storage also could be n-eeded for two agricultural uses: firm storage space for Winter Water and for regulating replacement water for well pumping. Storage volumes of 40,000 af(Winter Water) and 26,000 af(augrnentation water) were identified in order to meet these objectives (GEl, 1998). With the 66,000 af agricultural component, the total storage need identified in the GEl Study was estimated to be 173, I 00 af (GEl, 1998). There also may be other currently unidentified needs for storage. As described in Section 3.4, the system hydrologic modeling indicates that a dedicated pool of 40,000 af for Winter Water storage would not materially improve the ability to deliver Winter Water to program participants. As the preferred storage options planning work progressed during 1999-2000, several of the well augmentation organizations developed preliminary estimates of storage needs. These estimates suggested that the 26,000 af capacity for well augmentation supplies estimated in the earlier study by GEl may be too high. In addition, it was considered to be unlikely that agricultural interests would be able to fund development of new storage capacity on their own. ID GEl Consultants, Inc. 2-10 J:\PROJECTS\9906I\Reporu\PTctCrrrdSOP Final wpd