BOARD01670

• Board Meeting Date: 7/28/2003
• Description: CDP Section - Technical Assistance to Covered Entities
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

.

.

Figure 2 shows the same entities presented in Figure 1, illustrating whether they have an
existing, CWCB-approved water conservation plan. This map includes all entities that
use/ deliver over 1,000 acre-feet of water with and without CWCB-approved water conservation
plans. Please see Table C-1 in Appendix C for the database that supports these maps.

It is important to note that the water use/delivery figures presented in this report reflect the
best available information, but exact figures are often not reported. Currently, no state agency
collects and centralizes data on amount of water used/delivered by entities. Information used
in this study includes water use/delivery figures from the Colorado Water Resources and
Power Development Authority (CWRPDA) and the Drought & Water Supply Assessment being
conducted by the CWCB. For water providers without use/delivery data available from these
two sources, 2000 census figures from the Department of Local Affairs (DoLA) were used to
generate total water use/delivery (population was multiplied by Colorado's median per capita
water use, estimated from the CWRPDA and DoLA data to be .25 acre-feet per capita per year).

It is also important to consider when viewing Figures 1 and 2 or Tables 4 and 5 that there may
be confusion or double-counting in regards to what type of entity (e.g., a special district, water
conservancy district, or municipality) provides water to a given area. For example, towns that
are considered municipalities without a water conservation plan at a given acre-foot threshold
may actually receive water deliveries from a special district or water conservancy district that
has a plan. Unfortunately, information is not readily available to clearly delineate who receives
water from which entity.

Information based on the population and water delivery/use figures described above is
summarized in Tables 4 and 5. In Table 4, estimates of water use/delivery were made from
CWRPDA data or population information from DoLA. A crucial issue illustrated by this table is
that no water use/ delivery information exists for over 230 of the 272 special districts, nor for 42
of the 44 water conservancy districts. Due to the lack of water use / delivery information, it is not
possible to show how changes in acre-foot thresholds for required conservation plans would
impact the majority of these entities. The table does reflect that changes in an acre-foot
threshold would affect approximate 14 special districts with reported water deliveries/use.

Another important analysis is to determine what percentage of the total non-irrigation and non-
storage deliveries recorded by the State Engineers Office is impacted by water conservation
planning. As shown in Table 5, currently, entities with plans on file at the CWCB control nearly
one half of the total non-irrigation and non-storage deliveries. The table also provides insight
into the amount of deliveries that may be associated with different threshold levels (in acre-feet)
if the statutory requirement of 2,000 acre-feet is considered for change.

bl 4 S . I Dis .

.th d .th PI

dW

C

D'

Ta e : ::ipeCla tricts an ater onservancy I IStrtcts WI an WI out ans
Total Number Number without Plan at:
Number Entities >2,000 AF >1,500 AF >1,000 AF
Entity Type in State with Plan Annually Annually Annually
Special District 272 20 .,. 6" S"
Water Conservancy District 44 2 n/a' n/a" n/a'

TIata is not available on either population served or water delivered for over 230 special districts. No information is
available for the 42 water conservancy districts without plans, so these fields are labeled n/a = not available.

7