Water Management Committee Meeting

Water Management Committee Alternatives - Short List

Workshop No. 6 Minutes

The Water Management Committee (WMC) workshop with the Boyle Team began at 10:15 a.m. in Denver, Colorado. Mr. Blaine Dwyer of the Boyle Team began by reviewing the agenda and goals for the workshop. He also indicated the Boyle Team has been working with the monthly loss factors developed to date by the W14-1 Subgroup to assemble spreadsheets that route water to the critical habitat. The spreadsheets have been checked to ensure mass balances between the various reaches are maintained.

Screening Process Review

The first agenda item, review the screening process, was discussed. The discussion proceeded by going through the simplifying assumptions for categories 1 through 7 as set forth in the Scoping Memoranda.

Category 1 - Reservoirs: The Boyle Team clarified that for the purpose of their presentation, references to a quantity of water such as 10,000 acre-feet (AF) is equivalent to saying the average yield of 10,000 AF for an alternative over the 1975-94 study period and is the average yield for reducing flow shortages to the critical habitat with respect to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service target flows. Used consistently in this manner, quantities of contributed water are comparable because the reference is the critical habitat.

The Boyle Team identified that only reaches where reservoir sites had been previously investigated will be considered for new storage sites or enlargement potential. The question of what priority date such storage projects would use was raised. Will potential storage projects be evaluated using a 1998 or later priority date, or will potential storage projects be evaluated using an existing conditional storage right? It is anticipated that both the conditional right priority date and new priority date (1998 or later) conditions will be evaluated for the Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study (Study), so the potential yields at the critical habitat can be compared. Potential institutional difficulties will be identified for each storage project. The WMC recognized the need for the conditional right holders to be informed of the Study to avoid potential misunderstandings.

Category 2 - Water Conservation: Water contributions from water conservation alternatives will be evaluated assuming the following conditions: 1) the contributed water is not protected and is subject to diversion by downstream appropriators en route to the critical habitat and 2) the contributed water is protected and is not subject to diversion from downstream appropriators en route to the critical habitat. The Boyle Team suggested that only large water systems along Colorado's front range would be considered for municipal conservation measures. However, the WMC asked the Boyle Team to evaluate the municipal conservation potential for representative communities in Nebraska and Wyoming. For agriculture water conservation, the Boyle Team was asked to distinguish between conservation activities that reduce consumptive use versus activities that only change return flow timing.

Category 3 - Reuse: The Boyle Team will identify municipal, commercial, and industrial entities that are not using fully consumable water and either do not have recycling/reuse programs or reuse water to a limited extent. Typical irrigation efficiencies and conveyance losses will be assumed to determine the maximum amount of return flow that can be managed and rerouted above the critical habitat.

Category 4 - Water Marketing: Since the alternatives listed in this category are associated with temporarily or permanently taking irrigated lands out of production, it was suggested the title of this category be changed to Retirement of Irrigated Lands. The assumption of an average consumptive use throughout the study area of at least one acre-foot per acre was discussed. It was agreed that for the initial evaluation of the alternatives in this category, the assumption of one acre-foot per acre of consumptive use on the field was acceptable. The more favorable alternatives identified using this assumption would then receive further analysis using site specific information and employ the Blaney Criddle method to estimate consumptive use.

After a lunch break from 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m., time frames were established for the remaining agenda items and the discussion of reviewing assumptions continued.

Category 5 - Ground Water: The Boyle Team will generally evaluate only aquifers having a recoverable storage in excess of 100 years at an annual extraction rate of 10,000 AF per year. The SDF (Streamflow Depletion Factor) method will be used to analyze hydrologically connected ground water.

Category 6 - System Integration and Management: The Boyle Team will estimate the potential for additional yield through modified reservoir operations based on simplified reservoir operational procedures. This additional yield will be protected, not subject to rediversion, en route to the critical habitat. The following question was discussed. If an alternative affected federal contractors, would the contractors be compensated or would the contractors be able to say no to the implementation of the alternative? The WMC will need to work with the contractors if a situation such as this is identified. The Boyle Team will evaluate these alternatives and identify the potential concerns associated with the alternatives.

Category 7 - Watershed Management: The Boyle Team will only consider watershed management programs that deliver 10,000 AF of water or more to the critical habitat. The evaluation of watershed management alternatives will be based on existing information. The yield generated through watershed management alternatives is subject to evaporation, seepage, and rediversion en route to the critical habitat.

Initial Screening Review

The second agenda item, review of initial screening, was discussed. The initial screening performed by the Boyle Team identified those alternatives not likely to produce significant yields based on the information contained in the scoping memoranda. The alternatives that were proposed to be screened from further evaluation were discussed according to category, refer to Short List of Alternative Memorandum for the Boyle Team to the WMC dated November 4, 1998.

Category 1 - Reservoirs: Alternatives in this category associated with dredging existing reservoirs and reducing losses via evaporation suppression or lining were "screened out", i.e. removed from further evaluation. The reasons these alternatives were proposed to be screened out were discussed. The WMC asked the Boyle Team to provide better justification for alternatives that are screened out by including supporting data such as costs, elaborating on professional judgement used, and other information. The WMC identified the scoping memorandum for Category 1, under the subheading Operational Definitions, is lacking a discussion for reducing losses via evaporation suppression or lining. The Boyle Team was also asked to explore the potential yield from an aggregate of lining ponds/gravel pits within a reach.

Category 2 - Water Conservation: Alternatives in this category associated with municipal financial/economic incentives in Nebraska and Wyoming; municipal education/information in all three states; municipal end-user technology changes in Nebraska and Wyoming; municipal regulatory measures in Nebraska and Wyoming; and agricultural on-farm modification in all three states were proposed to be screened out. The Boyle Team explained why conservation measures were focused on large municipalities in Colorado. However, the WMC asked the Boyle Team to evaluate representative communities in Nebraska and Wyoming. Again the WMC identified the need for the Boyle Team to include supporting justification for screening out alternatives.

Category 3 - Reuse: Alternatives in this category for all three states associated with water reuse and commercial/industrial recycling; waste water effluent for cooling; pump-back arrangement of return flows (reuse pits); and relocation of return flows in Colorado and Wyoming were proposed to be screened out. An old study done by the Bureau of Reclamation to evaluate the potential of relocation of return flows at the bottom of the critical habitat to the top of the reach was noted. Duane Woodward was assigned to locate that study and provide it to the Boyle Team.

Category 4 - Water Marketing: No alternatives in this category were proposed to be screened out.

Category 5 - Ground Water: The alternative associated with development of non-tributary ground water sources was screened out. The Boyle Team screened out this alternative stating non-tributary ground water sources do not have long-term sustainability and is cost prohibitive. The WMC asked the Boyle Team to revisit this alternative and document/cite specific economic or physical conditions that might dismiss further evaluation of these types of alternatives. The WMC also asked that the alternative to build ground water mounds with excess flows for pumping in times of shortage be included in this category. This pumping could be directly for critical habitat needs or be exchanged for other supplies that could go to habitat needs.

Category 6 - System Integration and Management: Alternatives in this category associated with effluent exchange agreements and linking existing water supply systems in all three states were proposed to be screened out. The WMC asked the Boyle Team to change the alternative named link existing water supply systems to link existing municipal water supply systems. Transbasin imports from the Colorado River were screened out mainly for endangered species issues in the Colorado River Basin. The WMC identified that under transbasin diversion/import the Boyle Team should consider the Republican, Bighorn, and Rio Grande River basins.

Category 7 - Watershed Management: Alternatives in this category associated with forest management in Colorado and Nebraska and phreatophyte control, snowpack management via vegetative shading, and weather modification in all three states were proposed to be screened out. The Boyle Team was asked to revisit the alternative of forest management, with respect to Arapaho-Roosevelt and Medicine Bow National Forests. Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) have been completed for these forests and are available from the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Forest Leaf was also identified as a contact for further information.

The environmental justification given to screen out phreatophyte control was questioned. The Boyle Team will revisit the phreatophyte control alternative again. It was suggested the economics associated with this alternative be considered.

Weather modification was screened out because of the uncertainty of yields, sustainability, and potential impacts to other basins. Again the WMC identified the need for the Boyle Team to include supporting justification for screening out alternatives.

After a short break from 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., the workshop resumed with the third agenda item, suggestions of other screening criteria that would be used to eliminate alternatives from further evaluation. Other criteria for the Physical, Legal/Institutional, Economic, Social, and Environmental categories were presented by the Boyle Team. The resulting discussion is presented below.

The Boyle Team indicated that for purpose of the table summarizing the screening results, it would be better to have the subheadings of Region 1, Region 2, and Region 3 instead of the names of the states: Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska.

Physical Criteria: Screening criteria regarding the time to implement and time for realization of yield for the alternatives were discussed. The criterion for time to implement was set at nine (9) years from the start of the Program. The criterion for time to realization of yield was not quantified. The time to realization of yield will be used in ranking the alternatives. For example, alternatives with immediate realization of yield will be scored higher than alternatives with a longer time to realization of yield.

Legal/Institutional Criteria: Other criteria suggested by the Boyle Team for screening in this category included 1) alternatives that require adjudication and/or permitting in water court will not be considered if the estimated time required for this process exceeds 1/5/10 years; 2) if the legal and institutional costs associated with adjudication of permitting in water court, or changes in state water law exceed $1/2/5 million the alternative will not be considered; 3) alternatives that do not have the potential for consensus will not be considered. The Boyle Team was instructed to use the criterion 1) and 3) for ranking of the alternatives. Criterion 1) is part of the implementation time which should be done within nine years. Criterion 2) was stricken.

Economic Criteria: Other criteria suggested by the Boyle Team for screening in this category included 1) any alternative with an implementation cost that exceeds $ 30/60/90 million will not be considered; 2) combinations of alternatives with costs exceeding $50/75/100 million will not be considered; 3) alternatives with unit average yield costs exceeding $2000/3000/5000 per AF will not be considered. The WMC discussed how much of the $75 million budget for the Platte River Research Cooperative Agreement would be available to fund the alternatives to provide on average 60,000 AF of water at the critical habitat. The WMC discussed how much of the $75 million budget has already been designated for administration costs, Conservation/Supply Study, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) preparation, and habitat acquisition. It was estimated that $50 million should be used as the dollar amount at which to limit consideration of an alternative or the combination of alternatives. Some questioned if this estimate was too high. John Lawson volunteered to review the budget information in the Cooperative Agreement and report to the WMC at the November 17, 1998, meeting. The costs per AF of water at which an alternative would not be considered was set at $3000.

The need for a December meeting with the Boyle Team was set as an agenda item for the November 17 meeting. The Boyle Team will attend the January 5, 1999, WMC meeting and provide a status for the Study.

Any additional comments on the Boyle Team's Consumptive Uses and Return Flow memorandum and the Characterization of Existing Water Supply Systems and Uses memorandum should be sent to the WMC Chair by November 27, 1998.

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.