BOARD02636

• Board Meeting Date: 11/20/2000
• Description: CF Section - New Loans - Dolores Water Conservancy District - WETPACK
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

-. ^ ~

0':-. .'

. Endanl!.ered Species. This venture would divert water out of the Dolores River that
could be used to benefit the pikeminnow population in the lower Dolores and assist in
its recovery. Simultaneously, releasing this water in the Dolores River will protect
the struggling fishery on the Dolores River that is a Project purpose. .
. Economics. Even with a 90% loan, the value of the project is barely positive with a
I: 1.11 costlbenefit ratio. Unfortunately, there are several weaknesses with the
WETPACK Report's economic analysis, which appears to be based in large part on
numbers drawn from the Bureau's 1977 farm budget figures. The benefit of water
added into a local agricultural sector w()uld be the increase in net income attributable
to the additional water, based on local economic information (including how
important alfalfa is to the local economy); the WETP ACK Report does not cite the
economic figures used in the relevant calculations, nor whether they were local in
nature. In addition, the WETP ACK Report analysis uses the change in the price of
ONE commodity (alfalfa) as an indicator of what has happen to net benefits. Net
benefits depend on revenues (yield · price) minus costs. The WETP ACK Report
does not reveal the assumptions used about costs; thus it is possible that the net
benefits per acre-foot may have gone up, down or even become negative.
. Hydrology. The WETPACK's hydrology was evaluated for the period 1986 through .'"
1998 (see p. 46). It includes the 1988 hydrology twice to account for very dry penods:)
not included in the study period. It states that "a five year period of no spills could. ..:};,{' .
occur each century", and so a fifth year of no spill was added to the 1986 to 1988 ;'\~i'f;~
period. Yet, in the Hydrosphere model that looks at a 77-year period ofrecord,'i922-
1999, there are no S-year no-spill episodes, and not even 4-years no-spill periods:,-,.
The Hydrosphere model (Monthly Water Budget Analysis) includes historical ~';'."
hydrological (River flows) and climatological (precipitation) data for the period 1~22-
1999, thus considering wet, average, and dry years. Hydrosphere used diversionsfof'" .
the period 1990-1999 (District data), which are the highest in the whole period of
record. As stated above, Hydrosphere's results show that there is enough water left in
the reservoir for additional fisheries and for current-as well as additional other-
water uses,

e

- :<10

e

Recommendation, TV proposes that rather than accept the District's proposal for funding
as submitted, the Board ask the District to rework its proposal so that it also includes
making additional water available to the fish pool (under one of the three options
mentioned above) in parallel with-and at the same time as-the expanded irrigation. To
condition the loan to protect the fishery is not only consistent with the CWCB' s duty to
balance the environment and water development, it is consistent with the Board's
previous decision to appropriate an instream flow water right to protect the environment
of the Dolores River. It would also be appropriate for the CWCB to consider a separate
grant to the District to assist in delivering this additional water for the downstream trout
and pikeminnow fisheries, assuming that the Board approves proposed policy #14.

4

e

.;}