colorado’s grant program to explore alternative water transfer methods

Colorado’s Grant Program to Explore Alternative Water Transfer Methods

Todd DohertyColorado Water Conservation Board

Colorado Water WorkshopJuly 21, 2010

Introduction

Colorado’s Conundrum:

Increasing Water Demands

Static or Decreasing Water Supplies

Limited New Water Development

M&I Gap – Low Scenario

2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 -

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000 Ac

re-F

eet/

Year

Existing Supplies and Systems

IPPs if 100% Successful

2050 Gap - Low Scenario(150,000 AFY)

M&I Gap – Medium Scenario

2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 -

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000 Ac

re-F

eet/

Year

Existing Supplies and Systems

IPPs based on IBCC Input

2050 Gap - Medium Scenario360,000 AFY

M&I Gap – High Scenario

2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 -

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000 Ac

re-F

eet/

Year

Existing Supplies and Systems

Status Quo IPPs

2050 Gap - High Scenario580,000 AFY

35,000 to73,000 acres

51,000 acres77,000 acres

21,000 to28,000 acres

180,000 to267,000 acres

7,000 to13,000 acres

83,000 to84,000 acres

18,000acres66,000 acres

2050 Changes in Irrigated Acres

Statewide Total:504,000 to 718,00 acres15 to 20 percent

ATM Grant Program

$1.5 Million Authorized by CO State Legislature in 2007

Focused on South Platte River and Arkansas River

Goals – Protect property rights yet provide alternatives to buy and dry

Promote relationships between irrigators and cities

Additional $1.5 million Authorized this year.

Areas of Investigation

Administrative/Legal/Verification Issues

Institutional Issues Technical/Engineering analysis

Economics Social Issues Water Quality Issues

Considerations/Findings

High transaction costs may be a barrier to healthy leasing market (i.e. bulletin board).

Streamline/equalize water court transaction costs (potential legislative changes).

Certainty remains an issue (WISE Concept).

Cost vs. supply certainty for municipalities purchasing water via alternative agricultural transfers (need incentives)

Management costs can be high.

Alternative Transfer Methods Products

WISE Water Market Concept Lower South Platte Co-op FRICO Water Sharing Super Ditch Parker/CSU Deficit Irrigation

Considerations

Tipping points/thresholds to maintain viable agricultural economics/communities

Incentives necessary? Legislative changes necessary? Water Court test case necessary?

Alternative Transfer Methods Next Steps

Potential Legislative Concepts: Presumptive historical crop

consumptive use procedures Canal or ditch systemwide historical

consumptive use analysis Transfer of a portion of consumptive

use

Findings incorporated into update of Statewide Water Needs Assessment (November 2010).

CWCB may consider new grants in January 2010

End of Presentation

Questions?

Todd Doherty, CWCBTodd.doherty@state.co.us(303) 866-3441 x 3210