From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“This is a four-legged stool,” said Alex Davis, chairwoman of the IBCC, at the group’s meeting last week. “These are all processes to meet the gap.” The “legs” are:
– Identified projects and processes already under way.
– New supplies of water, most likely new diversions from the Western Slope.
– Municipal water conservation.
– Drying up, or alternatively sharing, agricultural water supplies.In any case, the state municipal water demand is expected to increase to nearly 2 million acre-feet from current demand of about 1.2 million acre-feet by 2050, when the state’s population is expected to double to 10 million people…
Not all of the identified projects — things like the Southern Delivery System or Arkansas Valley Conduit — are expected to be successful. And, they may not come at the right time or place to meet future needs. “We’re making the assumption that the identified projects and processes will be available to those who need them. It’s an oversimplification,” said Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Conservation District. “Not all those who need water have access” to the identified projects and processes, he said. “The timing and how water can be available needs to be answered.”
Drying up agriculture is seen as the default option because that is what has happened in the past. Municipal water suppliers thirsty for new supplies have found willing sellers of agricultural water and have not fully developed all of the water they’ve purchased. The 2004 Statewide Water Supply Initiative developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, found that thousands of more acres would be dried up even if most current water projects were successful.
No one is sure how conservation would be applied toward new supplies of water or simply as a hedge against drought…
A proposal by the IBCC to create water banking, compensatory storage on the West Slope and a risk-management plan for needs on both sides of the Continental Divide was batted around last week. The Front Range has the greatest needs, and currently brings over nearly half of its surface water supply from the Colorado River basin. In Kuhn’s words, it is a way to “share the pain.” Water banking would try to guard water rights claimed since the 1922 Colorado River Compact against a call by downstream states by storing water to release in the driest years. “The water would be stored in wet years to protect diversions in dry years,” Davis said…
“This is the discussion we’ve needed to have since we formed,” said Peter Nichols, a water attorney appointed by the governor to the IBCC. “How do we as a state develop more water out the Colorado River basin?”
“This is a different way of doing things that would protect more interests and make for less of a battle in water court,” said Melinda Kassen, Trout Unlimited’s Western Water Project legal director. “At the end of the day, this might be too much of a give, and people are free to take their risk and go their own way.”
Jeris Danielson, a former state engineer who represents the Arkansas Basin Roundtable on the IBCC, suggested municipal interests need to back off their hard-line positions. “We’re just starting a conversation that never took place for 130 years,” Danielson said. “The issues are just beginning to develop.”[…]
Davis asked the group to strongly consider moving the storage proposal ahead, allowing those with objections to help shape it into a more acceptable form. “Without a new supply, ag is the first thing we throw under the bus, and conservation becomes harder if there’s no light at the end of the tunnel,” Davis said. “The fears and concerns of the West Slope and environmental groups would be the first to halt a new supply project. We have to find conditions that make it palatable to everyone.”
More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.