PUB00060

• Year: 1998
• Title: SECWD/Arkansas Basin Future Water and Storage Needs Assessment
• Author: GEI Consultants, Inc
• Description: SECWD/Arkansas Basin Future Water and Storage Needs Assessment
• Publications - Doc Type: Water Resource Studies

Water and Storage Needs Assessment
SECWCDI Assessment Enterprise
December 10, 1998 .

Various combinations of these options, and potentially other options, should be evaluated in
greater detail to identifY a preferred plan and several alternatives for evaluation during
compliance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). Storage costs
are estimated to range from $150 per af (Turquoise Enlargement) to $3,000 per af (Gravel Lakes
Storage). Depending on how the alternative storage options ate combined, total costs to develop
173,000 afofadditional storage could range from $41 to $199 million. The lower cost is heavily
dependent on whether "reoperation" can be technically and legally accomplished or whether all
of the storage must be developed in new or enla.rged reservoirs.

In summary, municipal water demands, primarily developing in the Fountain Valley area
(Colorado Springs, Fountain Security, Widefield, and Stratmoor Hills) of the District, will
require development of additional water storage capacity. Agricultural water supply deficits are
expected to occur up to 59,000 af(ormore) as municipal demands on Fry-Ark Project water and
other water resources in the Basin increase over time. This means that dedicated storage for the
Winter Water Storage Program will be increasingly important for agricultural water users.
Coupled with dedicated storage for the Winter Water Program and other potential partners, the
storage need for District entities is estimated to be 155,000 af. This need will begin to develop
over the next 10 to 20 years. Therefore, studies should be initiated in the near future to further
evaluate alternative storage options in terms of technical and environmental performance.

Reoperation of Fry-Ark Project storage is likely to be an important element of an overall water
management strategy. Coupled with possibilities for enlarging Project reservoirs, this means that
detailed discussions with the Bureau of Reclamation should be undertaken soon, in order to fully
assess the feasibility, costs, NEPA compliance requirements, and institutional/legal issues
associated with these options.

. Public Comments: The Assessment Project was conducted with opportunities for public input.
The SSC meetings were open to the public and three public meetmgs were held (Buena Vista,
LaJunta, and Leadville) to present the draft Report. The public expressed concerns about
additional water development, particularly in the Upper Basin, in the absence of more-intensive
conservatiori in the municipal sector. Concerns a.lso were expressed about the environmental and
social impacts of additional water development and the need for more-detailed environmental
and social impact evaluations. Comments from the public are acknowledged in the final report
for the Assessment Project. These comments WIll be constdered during subsequent phases of
investigation.

Recommendations: Based on studies for the Water and Storage Needs Assessment Project,
additional water development will be required to meet the year 2040 needs of District water
supply entities. In order to initiate this development, the following actions are recommended:

II!! GEl Consultants, Inc.

-vi-

97411\FinaU\TEXT-A.WPD