Laserfiche WebLink
<br />COLORADO RIVER COMPACT WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTION <br />November 2, 1995 FINAL REPORT <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />The next step in the process was to look at various types of growth and development <br />projections. First, population projections for the western slope of Colorado and Colorado as <br />a whole were reviewed. These projections show a 50 % increase in population for the west <br />slope and about a 140 % increase for the state as a whole by the year 2020. Next, Colorado's <br />section of the "Upper Colorado River Division States Depletion Schedule for the Colorado <br />River Basin," was reviewed. The CWCB provides this depletion schedule to the Upper <br />Colorado River Commission, which in turn provides it to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for <br />use in CRSS planning studies and determining Salinity Control Program needs. This <br />depletion schedule is also provided to the Western Area Power Administration for use in <br />power marketing studies that help establish power rates for Westerns marketing area. The <br />current depletion schedule projects full compact development by the year 2060. Because of <br />the purposes for which the depletion schedule is used and the fact that it considers only major <br />projects, some felt the projections might be conservative. While these projections were quite <br />useful in developing an understanding of how future development might occur, they did not <br />go far enough to provide the guidance sought for this effort. <br />The next step was to combine in some fashion the growth projections with actual <br />water use, and then compare those results to the development projections. This was done by <br />developing a set of alternatives in which the proposed development projections were adjusted <br />to reflect the depletion schedule and potential future growth. Once this was accomplished, we <br />had as good a feel as possible for how future growth might occur. The major concern was <br />that any recommendation based on these values might be perceived as a state water plan or <br />land use plan which supports certain types of development, and would be considered <br />unacceptable. Thus, the challenge became how to set forth this information in a fashion that <br />would allow the CWCB to move forward with the appropriation of recovery instream flows <br />and yet assure that adequate water supplies were left in each basin to meet future development <br />needs within the limitations imposed by water supply and overall compact apportionment. <br />At this point the focus returned to looking at apportionment alternatives among <br />individual basins with the knowledge of compact limitations and what we believed to be <br />adequate estimates of potential future growth and uses. Given the uncertainties in determining <br />Colorado's actual compact apportionment, providing a range for the development allowances <br />in each basin was essential. The ranges (shown on Table 4) should allow for both the <br />compact uncertainty, and for the uncertainty in where future water development might actually <br />occur. This approach wQuld also allow any water remaining in a river in excess of these <br />compact development allowances, and there is a considerable amount on average, to be used <br />for recovery instream flows. <br />Recovery instream flows will be divided into two parts in accordance with paragraphs <br />3 and 4 of the Enforcement Agreement between the CWCB and the Service. The Paragraph 4 <br />portion of the recovery instream flow would be "modifiable" by the CWCB. The Paragraph 3 <br />portion would only be modifiable with the consent of the Service. Because of compact and <br />water supply limitations, it will probably not be possible to develop all the water within the <br />ranges identified for each basin since the total of the upper limits combined more than likely <br />exceeds Colorado's ultimate compact apportionment. Therefore, the CWCB should coordinate <br />