•
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
WINTER WATER STORAGE PROGRAM
FR YINGPAN -ARKANSAS PROJECT
INTRODUCTION:
When the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was authorized by Congress in 1962, a
critical part of the Project provided for the improved management of native waters.
Many Members of Congress, particularly those representing States along the Colorado
River, indicated they supported the Project because it did incorporate features which
would enable owners of decreed water rights in the Arkansas River Basin to better
manage their water. They said were it not for the fact that these features were included,
and only the introduction of Colorado River water was provided, they would have opposed
the Bill. Citizens from Western Colorado still share these feelings.
Therefore, one of the key elements of the Project is Pueblo Dam and Reservoir,
which will enable owners of decreed rights to impound waters to which they are legally
entitled between the dates of November 1 - March 31 each year. These are waters which
are otherwise used in their entirety for winter irrigation, or passed on down the River
and out of the State, and are forever lost to the owners of those decreed rights.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO WINTER STORAGE:
Excerpts from letter from Commissioner of Reclamation Floyd Dominy to Secretary of
Interior Stewart L. Udall, December 11, 1964: "Through importation of new water, improved regulation of existing water supplies, and reuse of return flows, the Project will provide an average annual increased canal headgate supply of 163, 100 acre-feet of supplemental irrigation water for a total of
208, 600 acres. These lands are located within the Southeastern Colorado Water Conserv- ancy District, and will be served by existing distribution systems. About 267, 800 acres are located in the Arkansas Valley, and will receive service directly from importation of new water and the improved regulation of existing water supplies. The Fountain River
Valley, containing about 12, 800 acres and located within the Conservancy District, will receive indirect supplies of supplemental water by return flows from project municipal water allotted to Colorado Springs. Project return flows also will provide an additional average of 29,500 acre-feet of water to lands outside the District below the existing John
Martin Reservoir of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Estimates of the average annual increase of 163, 100 acre-feet of supplemental irrigation water for District lands are as follows by sources:
ACRE-FEET
Direct water - released at Pueblo Reservoir. Western slope imports plus conservation of Flood flows 49,000
New water developed by Twin Lakes Canal Company 11,800
Arkansas River winter stored water 65, 900
Subtotal 127, 200
Indirect water - return flows and reuse. Reuse from the new Twin Lakes water 4, 700
Return flows from municipal and industrial water 11,400
-2- ACRE-FEET
Reuse from project imports 19,800
Subtotal 35,900
Total average annual supplemental supply 163,100
The supplemental irrigation water supply will alleviate to a large degree the water shortages experienced by the irrigation of the Arkansas Valley, but is not adequate to completely eliminate shortages in all years. The preproject canal headgate shortage for the 267,800 acres of Arkansas Valley lands currently averages 38 per cent annually based on a 47 year (1911-57) water operation study. The post-project headgate shortage for these lands is estimated to average 19 per cent annually.
Commencement of District payments for delivery of winter stored water will depend on the successful development of the winter storage program by the District.
The winter storage program contemplates the storage of Arkansas River flows currently being diverted for winter irrigation under existing water rights, during the five month period November 1 to March 31. Release of this stored water from Pueblo Reservoir during the ensuing summer irrigation season is expected to be much more beneficial than the present inefficient use of the water for winter irrigation. Practically all of the
13 ditch companies (serving a total of 255,000 acres) within the District below Pueblo
Reservoir currently practice winter irrigation in varying degree. Development of a successful winter storage program will require that these ditch companies enter into contracts with the District (a) agreeing to forego the exercise of their diversion rights during the winter season so that the water may be stored in Pueblo Reservoir, and (b) agreeing on the manner in which the participating ditch companies will share the
-3- irrigation season releases of the winter stored water. In addition, the cooperation and
consent of the seven ditch companies outside the District which serve some 58,000 acres
below the existing John Martin Reservoir will be required."
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (Contract #14-06-700-4715)
Definitions:
(e) "Winter Storage" shall mean that water which is stored in project facilities,
pursuant to existing appropriation rights in the water of the Arkansas River and its tributaries, each year through the forebearance of prior appropriators in the District from exercising their direct flow rights during the non-irrigation season, November 1 to
April 1, or such other five months' winter period as may be agreed upon by the Secretary, the District, and the water users. Winter storage so accumulated during the non-irriga- tion season, and not delivered pursuant to Article 6 (c) of this contract, to such prior appropriators before the next November 1, shall no longer be considered winter storage.
Water to be furnished to District:
6. (a) Commencing with the year in which the initial delivery date becomes effective, and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall announce to the District in writing, after consultation with the District's authorized representatives, but on or before March
15 each year, the quantity of project water estimated to be available for furnishing the
District during the current year. The Secretary shall also notify the District of the estimated quantity of winter storage available for furnishing to the District during the current year. Revised estimates of project water availability shall be given to the Dis- trict from time to time as the actual accumulations of Project water become known to the
Secretary. -4- (b) It is understood that municipal users shall have the first right to contract
with the District for the imported project water available to the District each year. What-
ever part thereof is not preempted for such use by appropriate contracts with the District
and payment therefore to the District on or before April 1 each year, shall be available
together with the remainder of the available project water supply for irrigation uses.
(c) Winter storage shall be furnished to the District for delivery to project
users only in accordance with agreements among the water users and the District in form
acceptable to the United States. In determining the quantity of winter storage available to
the District at any time, proper accounting shall be made for required spills thereof, as
provided in Article 13 hereof, and for transportation and evaporation losses.
Time for delivery of water:
7. The District, after consultation with the Secretary, shall furnish the Secretary in writing a schedule of water delivery requirements for the current year, both as to
project water and as to winter storage. Such schedule of deliveries may be revised from time to time as needs of the District's water users may require.
Equitable distribution of water for irrigation:
8. The District shall equitably distribute each year the project water available for irrigation and municipal purposes. (Not Winter Storage Water.)
Water acquired by District other than from the United States:
23. (a) The provisions of this contract shall not be applicable to or effect water or water rights now owned or hereafter acquired by the District or landowners within the
District other than the United States; except for winter storage as hereinbefore defined.
-5- Water furnished pursuant to the terms of this contract may be transported by means of the same distribution facilities as water now available or which may become available to the District or landowners within the District other than pursuant to the terms of this contract if the Secretary determines that such mingling is necessary to avoid duplication of facilities; and notwithstanding such mingling of water the provisions of this contract shall be applicable to the quantity of water furnished to the District pursuant to the terms hereof, and such mingling of water shall not in any manner subject the quantity acquired by or available to the District or landowners within the District other than from the United
States to the provisions of this contract.
EXCERPTS FROM THE ARKANSAS RIVER COMPACT, DECEMBER 14, 1948: Applicable to Winter Storage below John Martin Dam: Reservoir. in ARTICLE
The major purposes of this Compact are to:
A. Settle existing disputes and remove causes of future controversy between the
States of Colorado and Kansas, and between citizens of one and citizens of the other State, concerning the waters of the Arkansas River and their control, conservation and utiliza- tion for irrigation and other beneficial purposes.
B. Equitably divide and apportion between the States of Colorado and Kansas the waters of the Arkansas River and their utilization as well as the benefits arising from the construction, operation and maintenance by the United States of John Martin Reser- voir Project for water conservation purposes.
ARTICLE III
As used in this Compact:
-6- A. The word "Stateline" means the geographical boundary between Colorado and
Kansas.
B. The term "waters of the Arkansas River" means the waters originating in the
natural drainage basin of the Arkansas River, including its tributaries, upstream from
the Stateline, and excluding waters brought into the Arkansas River basin from other
river basins.
C. The term "Stateline flow" means the flow of waters of the Arkansas River as
determined by gaging stations located at or near the Stateline. The flow as determined
by such stations, whether located in Colorado or Kansas, shall be deemed to be the
actual Stateline flow.
ARTICLE IV
Both States recognize that:
D. This Compact is not intended to impede or prevent future beneficial develop-
ment of the Arkansas River Basin in Colorado and Kansas by Federal or State Agencies,
by private enterprise, or be combinations thereof, which may involve construction of
dams, reservoirs and other works for the purposes of water utilization and control, as
well as the improved or prolonged functioning of existing works: Provided, that the waters
of the Arkansas River, as defined in Article III, shall not be materially depleted in usable
quantity or availability for use to the water users in Colorado and Kansas under this
Compact by such future development or construction.
ARTICLE V
Colorado and Kansas hereby agree upon the following basis of apportionment of the waters
-7- of the Arkansas River:
A. Winter storage in John Martin Reservoir shall commence on November 1st
of each year and continue to and include the next succeeding March 31st. During said
period all water entering said reservoir up to the limit of the then available conservation
capacity shall be stored: Provided, that Colorado may demand releases of water equiva-
lent to the river flow, but such releases shall not exceed 100 c. f. s. (cubic feet per
second) and water so released shall be used without avoidable waste.
ARTICLE VI
A. (1) Nothing in this Compact shall be construed as impairing the jurisdiction
of Kansas over the waters of the Arkansas River that originate in Kansas and over the waters that flow from Colorado across the Stateline into Kansas.
(2) Except as otherwise provided, nothing in this Compact shall be con-
strued as supplanting the administration by Colorado of the rights of appropriators of
waters of the Arkansas River in said State as decreed to said appropriators by the courts of Colorado, nor as interfering with the distribution among said appropriators by Colo- rado, nor as curtailing the diversions and use for irrigation and other beneficial
purposes in Colorado of the waters of the Arkansas River.
ARTICLE VII
A. Each State shall be subject to the terms of this Compact. Where the name of the State or the term "State" is used in this Compact these shall be construed to include any person or entity of any nature whatsoever using, claiming or in any manner asserting any right to the use of the waters of the Arkansas River under the authority of that State.
-8- B. This Compact established no general principle or precedent with respect to any other interstate stream.
C. Whenever any State or Federal official or agency is referred to in this Com- pact such reference shall apply to the comparable official or agency succeeding to their duties and functions.
EXCERPTS FROM COLORADO REVISED STATUTES
148-21-3. DEFINITIONS. — (1) For the purposes of this article, unless the context clen.rly indicates a different meaning:
(7) "Beneficial Use" is the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the pur- pose for which the diversion is lawfully made and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall include the impoundment of water for recreational purposes, including fishery or wildlife.
(11) "Change of Water Right" means a change of the type, place, or time of use, a change in the point or points of diversion, a change from a fixed point or points of diversion to alternate or supplemental points of diversion, a change from alternate or supplemental points of diversion to a fixed point or points of diversion, a change in the means of diversion, a change in the place or places of storage, a change from direct application to storage and subsequent application, a change from storage and subsequent application to direct application, a change from a fixed place or places of storage to alternate places of storage, a change from alternate places of storage to a fixed place or places of storage, or any combination of such changes. The term "change of water right"
-9- includes changes of conditional water rights as well as changes of water rights.
(12) "Plan for Augmentation" means a detailed program to increase the supply of
water available for beneficial use in a division or portion thereof by the development of
new or alternate means or points of diversion, be a pooling of water resources, by water
exchange projects, by providing substitute supplies of water, by the development of new
sources of water or by any other appropriate means.
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES WHICH MAY BE APPLICABLE UNDER LONG TERM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS:
148-6-5. OWNER MAY LOAN WATER RIGHT. —Tt shall be lawful for the owners of
dit hes and water rights taking water from the same stream, to exchange with, and loan
to, each other, for a limited time, the water to which each may be entitled, for the
purpose of saving crops or using the water in a more economical manner; provided, that
the owners making such loan or exchange shall give notice in writing signed by all the
owners participating in said loan or exchange, stating that such loan or exchange has
been made, and for what length of time the same shall continue, whereupon said water
commissioner shall recognize the same in his distribution of water.
148-2-6. RIGHT TO REUSE OF IMPORTED WATER. —Whenever an appropriator has
heretofore, or shall hereafter lawfully introduce foreign water into a stream system
from an unconnected stream system, such appropriator may make a succession of uses
of such water by exchange or otherwise to the extent that its volume can be distinguished
from the volume of the streams into which it is introduced. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to impair or diminish any water right which has become vested.
148-11-25. UPSTREAM STORAGE—SUBSTITUTE SUPPLY. —(1) In every case in
-10- which the state engineer finds that water can be stored out of priority under circum-
stances, such that the water so stored can be promptly made available to downstream
senior storage appropriators in case they are unable to completely store their entire
appropriative right due to insufficient water supply, the state engineer may permit such
upstream storage out of priority but such storage water shall be promptly released on
demand of a downstream senior whenever needed by such senior for actual use.
(2) Individuals and private or public entities, alone or in concert, may provide
a substituted supply of water to one or more appropriators senior to them, not to exceed
that to which any senior appropriator is entitled from time to time by virtue of his
appropriations, and to the extent that such substituted water is made available to meet
the appropriative requirements of such senior, the right of such senior to draw water
pursuant to his appropriation shall be deemed to be satisfied. The rights of such senior
may be used for effectuating such substitution during the period while it is in operation,
and the practice may be confirmed by court order as provided for determining water
rights.
(3) Any substituted water shall be of a quality and continuity to meet the require-
ments of use to which the senior appropriation has normally been put.
(4) Whenever subtitute water is supplied to a senior ditch, the supplier or his
-,ssignee may take an equivalent amount for beneficial use from water of the state of
Colorado to the full extent possible without impairing the availability of water lawfully divertible by others, A practice of substitution or exchange pursuant to law may con- stitute an appropriative right and may be adjudicated or otherwise evidenced as any other right of appropriation. PLAN OF OPERATION
As provided in the Colorado State Statutes, particularly "Water Right Determin- ation and Administration Act"; the Contract between the United States and the Southeastern
Colorado Water Conservancy District, and the Operating Prinicples for the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project, the Board of Directors of the District propose the following Operating
Plan to holders of water decrees within the confines of the Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
1. Commencing on November 1 of the year when the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation declares any of the Project Facilities, i. e. Turquoise Lake, Twin Lakes, or Pueblo
Reservoir, ready for storage of winter water, the Board of Directors of the District, at the request of owners of water decrees adjudicated for storage in Project facilities, will authorize the impounding of such waters as "Winter Water".
2. The charge for such storage shall be at the rate of $2. 25 per acre-foot.
3. Proper records will be maintained in the Offices of the District to reflect the exact amount of water stored by each entity, and the dates of each storage; a running total under each decree; the amount of loss charged to evaporation; the dates and amounts of withdrawals; the dates and amounts of payments; etc.
4. Each decree holder shall, in writing, set forth the dates and amounts desired for winter storage, and the dates and amounts for release.
5. A check shall be issued to the District to cover the cost of storage at the rate of $2. 25 per acre-foot before the District shall authorize the impounding of said winter water.
6. In accordance with definitions, (e)"Winter Storage" in the Contract between
-12- the United States and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, "Winter
Storage so accumulated during the non-irrigation season, and not delivered pursuant to Article 6 (c) of this Contract to such prior appropriators before the next November 1,
shall no longer be considered winter storage".
Article 6 (c) provides, "Winter Storage shall be furnished to the District for delivery to Project water users only in accordance with agreements among the water user!.
and the District, in form acceptable to the United States. In determining the quantity of winter storage available to the District at any time, proper accounting shall be made for required spills thereof, as provided in Article 13 hereof, and for transportation and
evaporation losses".
Thus, winter water stored under this program, and not used by the owner before
November 1, shall become Project water and will be available to the Board of Directors
for inclusion in waters to be allocated for use the following year.
ANALYSIS OF TOTAL WATER MANAGEMENT ON ARKANSAS RIVER UNDER WINTER STORAGE PROGRAM
1. On November 1 of each year, holders of water decrees which have been
adjudicated for storage by the Water Court, will be able to conserve those valuable
waters for use during the next irrigation season, or in the cases of municipalities, at a time when it will be critically needed. They accumulate such waters until April 1, or such other five months' winter period as may be agreed upon by the Secretary, the District and the water users.
2. During the non-irrigation season, they may elect to store all or part of such decreed waters as are made available to them by the Division Engineer under Colorado
-13- State Statutes.
3. At the discretion of the owners of such decreed water, they may request releases of specific amounts of their stored water on certain days, in order that those waters might be used for early spring cultivation or planting.
4. During the annual snow melt period, those same decree holders will be able to use decreed waters available to them while retaining winter waters not previously with- drawn.
5. When calls on the River would otherwise critically reduce or totally curtail use of decreed waters in the River under the Priority System, those persons who elected to store winter water in Project facilities could request release of such waters in amounts desired, and on days when the water could be used most beneficially.
6. Later in the irrigation season when decreed water is in short supply and stored winter water has been used, owners of allocated Project water could call for amounts of such water on specific dates when it could be put to its maximum beneficial use.
7. Municipal and water user associations in the District may also enjoy the benefits of storing their winter water, and then using it during water short months. Such waters would be available through the Proposed M&I Pipelines; through existing surface water systems; or from wells after the Water Court has adjudicated the use of wells as alternate points of diversion.
USE OF ANALOG AND DIGITAL COMPUTERS IN TOTAL WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
The Analog and Digital Computers, developed by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the District and the Colorado Water Conservation Board, will be indispen-
-14- sable in assuring the maximum beneficial use of the Winter Storage Program. Voluminous data have been collected on surface and ground water supplies, and the relationship of these waters. This information can be programmed on a month to month, year to year, or dis- tant future basis to develop long-range water management programs for the citizens in the
Arkansas River Basin. The combination of this very scientific program, with the features
of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, will make the Arkansas River Basin one of the best
managed Basins in the United States.
Through the use of these Cornputors, the District, State Engineer and water users will be able to program the use of surface and ground water, the utilization of winter storage facilities, the introduction of supplemental Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water, recharge capabilities, and other similar programs, to be able to plan for the use of the waters available. For the irrigators this will provide greater crop assurance, and for the municipalities the ability to program long-range growth and development plans.
HISTORIC WINTER WATER FLOW
The following data were received from the Division Engineer's Office, Division 2, and identifies a ten year period of "Historic Winter Water Flow" between Granite and the
Colorado - Kansas Stateline. These are waters which have been in the Arkansas River during the period when duly authorized decree holders could store their portion of winter water.
-15- HISTORIC WINTER WATER FLOW
WATER YEAR STATION NOV, DEC, JAN. FEB MAR, GRANITE 1960 to 1961 5, 590 A. Ft. 4, 880 A. Ft. 4, 800 A. Ft. 3, 900 A. Ft. 4, 490 A. Ft. 1961 to 1962 7, 890 A. Ft. 5, 660 A. Ft. 5,410 A. Ft. 5, 220 A. Ft. 6,460 A. Ft. 1962 to 1963 7, 170 A. Ft. 7, 690 A. Ft. 5, 040 A. Ft. 4, 890 A. Ft 6, 030 A. Ft. 1963 to 1964 6, 210 A. Ft. 5, 270 A. Ft. 5, 260 A. Ft. 4, 560 A. Ft. 4, 840 A. Ft. 1964 to 1965 5, 630 A. Ft. 4, 590 A. Ft. 4, 350 A. Ft. 4, 280 A. Ft. 4, 370 A. Ft. 1965 to 1966 10, 140 A. Ft. 7, 600 A. Ft. 6, 480 A. Pt. 4, 680 A. Ft. 7, 200 A. Ft. 1966 to 1967 5, 250 A. Ft. 5, 900 A. Ft. 5, 510 A. Ft. 5,830 A. Ft. 5, 530 A. Ft. 1967 to 1968 7, 040 A. Pt. 5, 100 A. Ft. 4, 300 A. Ft. 5, 180 A. Ft. 6, 150 A. Ft. 1968 to 1969 7, 300 A. Ft. 5, 970 A. Ft. 5, 010 A. Ft. 4,400 A. Ft. 4, 880 A. Ft.
SALIDA 1960 to 1961 16, 600 A. Ft. 14, 750 A. Ft. 13, 770 A. Ft. 12, 170 A. Ft. 14, 090 A. Ft. 1961 to 1962 27, 090 A. Ft. 19, 450 A. Ft. 18, 360 A. Ft. 16, 100 A. Ft. 16, 290 A. Ft. 1962 to 1963 23, 790 A. Ft. 22, 350 A. Ft. 15, 780 A. Ft. 17, 920 A. Ft. 18, 840 A. Ft. 1963 to 1964 16, 660 A. Ft. 15, 170 A. Ft. 13, 640 A. Ft. 13, 140 A. Ft. 12, 210 A. Ft. 1964 to 1965 17, 160 A. Ft. 17, 660 A. Ft. 17, 390 A. Ft. 15, 020 A. Ft. 14, 110 A. Ft. 1965 to 1966 26, 780 A. Ft. 22, 670 A. Ft. 20, 040 A. Ft. 16, 050 A. Ft. 15, 260 A. Ft. 1966 to 1967 16, 390 A. Ft. 18, 850 A. Ft. 17, 100 A. Ft. 14, 180 A. Ft. 13,410 A. Ft. 1967 to 1968 18, 670 A. Ft. 17, 380 A. Ft. 15, 100 A. Ft. 13, 120 A. Ft. 12, 000 A. Ft. 1968 to 1969 19, 330 A. Ft. 18, 360.A. Ft. 15, 900 A. Ft. 13, 030 A. Ft. 12, 710 A. Ft.
CANON CITY 1960 to 1961 17, 490 A. Ft. 18,200 A. Ft. 18, 220 A. Ft. 15, 740 A. Ft, 21, 570 A. Ft. 1961 to 1962 34, 900 A. Ft. 31, 330 A. Ft. 25, 380 A. Ft. 23, 980 A, Ft. 22, 420 A. Ft. 1962 to 1963 19, 580 A. Ft. 19, 240 A. Ft. 17, 830 A. Ft. 16, 510 A. Ft. 16, 010 A. Ft. 1963 to 1964 11,990 A. Ft. 16, 650 A. Ft. 15, 760 A. Ft. 13, 050 A. Ft. 13, 570 A. Ft. 1964 to 1965 15, 580 A. Ft. 21, 790 A. Ft. 18, 900 A. Ft. 15, 900 A. Ft. 16, 520 A. Ft. WATER YEAR STATION NOV, DEC, JAN_. FEB MAR CANON CITY (continued) 1965 to 1966 30, 850 A. Ft. 31, 560 A. Ft. 24, 590 A. Ft. 19, 750 A. Ft. 18, 220 A. Ft. 1966 to 1967 14, 610 A. Ft. 18,440 A. Ft. 18, 170 A. Ft. 15, 050 A. Pt. 14, 010 A. Ft. 1967 to 1968 21, 320 A. Ft. 21, 190 A. Ft. 17, 840 A. Ft. 14, 460 A. Ft. 17, 250 A. Ft. 1968 to 1969 18, 440 A. Ft. 21, 450 A. Ft. 17, 790 A. Ft. 13, 540 A. Ft. 14, 880 A. Ft.
PUEBLO (NEAR) 1960 to 1961 15, 560 A. Ft. 18, 740 A. Ft. 19, 390 A. Ft. 14,450 A. Ft. 14, 880 A. Ft, 1961 to 1962 38, 260 A. Ft. 35, 960 A. Ft. 28, 980 A. Ft. 26, 250 A. Ft. 19, 440 A. Ft, 1962 to 1963 15, 900 A. Ft. 21, 260 A. Ft. 17, 900 A. Pt. 16, 380 A. Ft. 10, 640 A, Ft. 1963 to 1964 9, 280 A. Ft. 11,380 A. Ft. 13, 030 A. Ft. 9,490 A. Ft. 9, 030 A. Ft. 1964 to 1965 11, 160 A. Ft, 13, 240 A. Ft. 12, 860 A. Ft. 13, 920 A. Ft. 12, 920 A. Ft. 1965 to 1966 25, 060 A. Ft. 28, 670 A. Ft. 25, 540 A. Ft. 19, 390 A. Ft. 13, 900 A. Ft. 1966 to 1967 11,210 A. Ft. 15, 830 A. Ft. 17, 690 A. Ft. 11, 830 A. Ft. 6, 170 A. Ft. 1967 to 1968 14, 930 A. Ft. 18, 300 A. Ft. 18, 900 A. Ft. 14, 590 A. Ft. 11,060 A. Ft, 1968 to 1969 18, 330 A. Ft. 17, 760 A. Ft. 17, 790 A. Ft. 11, 680 A. Ft. 9, 900 A. Ft.
NEPESTA 1960 to 1961 16, 030 A. Ft, 16, 800 A. Ft. 20, 180 A. Ft. 17, 570 A. Ft. 23, 000 A. Ft. 1961 to 1962 42, 690 A. Ft, 23, 340 A. Ft. 13, 360 A. Ft. 26, 570 A, Ft. 29, 270 A. Ft. 1962 to 1063 20, 230 A. Ft. 22, 060 A. Ft. 17, 000 A. Ft. 18, 560 A. Ft. 18, 180 A. Ft. 1963 to 1964 15, 240 A. Ft. 15, 290 A. Ft. 16, 870 A. Ft. 17, 340 A. Ft. 19, 120 A. Ft. 1964 to 1965 14, 230 A. Ft. 19, 740 A. Ft. 17, 840 A. Ft. 17, 900 A. Ft, 18, 250 A. Ft. 1965 to 1966 30, 470 A. Ft. 39, 010 A. Ft. 38, 460 A. Ft. 32, 330 A. Ft. 17, 920 A. Ft. 1966 to 1967 14, 780 A. Ft. 20, 730 A. Ft. 18, 040 A. Ft. 17, 110 A. Ft. 11,230 A. Ft. 1967 to 1968 14, 380 A. Ft. 18, 480 A. Ft. 25, 410 A. Ft. 20, 580 A. Ft. 20, 610 A. Ft. 1968 to 1969 21, 770 A. Ft. 21, 120 A. Ft. 21, 040 A. Ft. 19, 540 A. Ft. 18, 800 A. Ft.
-2 WATER YEAR _ STATION NOV. DEC JAN„ FEB, MAR. LA JUNTA 1960 to 1961 2, 280 A. Ft. 1, 200 A. Ft. 1, 170 A. Ft. 803 A. Ft. 1,210 A. Ft. 1961 to 1962 4,110 A. Ft. 1, 710 A. Ft. 1, 180 A. Ft. 1, 990 A. Ft. 3, 620 A. Ft. 1962 to 1963 4, 240 A. Ft. 2, 260 A. Ft. 1, 010 A. Ft. 1, 500 A. Ft. 1,920 A. Ft. 1963 to 1964 2, 660 A. Pt. 1,450 A. Ft. 923 A. Ft. 499 A. Ft. 1, 980 A. Ft. 1964 to 1965 2, 610 A. Ft. 1, 520 A. Ft. 1, 500 A. Ft. 1, 670 A. Ft. 1, 590 A. Ft. 1965 to 1966 12, 330 A. Ft. 12, 870 A. Ft. 8,050 A. Ft. 15, 620 A. Ft. 1, 840 A. Ft. 1966 to 1967 2, 380 A. Ft. 1, 830 A. Ft. 1, 000 A. Ft. 1, 590 A. Ft. 1„ 620 A. Ft. 1967 to 1968 4,440 A. Ft. 2, 760 A. Ft. 1, 790 A. Ft. 1, 830 A. Ft. 1,980 A. Ft. 1968 to 1969 1, 820 A. Ft. 1, 950 A. Ft. 1,430 A. Ft. 1, 550 A. Ft. 1, 720 A. Ft.
LAS ANIMAS 1960 to 1961 1, 440 A. Ft. 3, 180 A. Ft. 3, 630 A. Ft. 1, 990 A. Ft. 1, 800 A. Ft. 1961 to 1962 4,210 A. Ft. 3, 040 A. Ft. 2, 990 A. Ft. 4, 470 A. Ft. 3,480 A. Ft. 1962 to 1963 3, 050 A. Ft. 2, 750 A. Ft. 2, 790 A. Ft. 3, 040 A. Ft. 3,210 A. Ft. 1963 to 1964 450 A. Ft. 1,000 A. Ft. 1, 170 A. Ft. 843 A. Ft. 764 A. Ft. 1964 to 1965 331 A. Ft. 494 A. Ft. 639A. Ft. 1, 390 A. Ft. 589 A. Ft. 1965 to 1966 12, 460 A. Ft. 15, 140 A. Ft. 9, 940 A. Ft. 21, 700 A. Ft. 3, 910 A. Ft. 1966 to 1967 1, 190 A. Ft. 2, 690 A. Ft. 1, 590 A. Ft. 1,210 A. Ft. 1, 150 A. Ft. 1967 to 1968 3, 780 A. Ft. 3, 540 A. Ft. 2, 660 A. Ft. 1,480 A. Ft. 1, 320 A. Ft. 1968 to 1969 1, 350 A. Ft. 1, 480 A. Ft. 2, 070 A. Ft. 1, 630 A. Ft. 2, 300 A. Ft.
LA MA R 1960 to 1961 225 A. Ft. 264 A. Ft. 235 A. Ft. 232 A. Ft. 1,280 A. Ft. 1961 to 1962 2, 700 A. Ft. 3,200 A. Ft. 2, 260 A. Ft. 2, 650 A. Ft. 1,740 A. Ft. 1962 to 1963 515 A. Ft. 550 A. Ft. 1, 320 A. Ft. 2, 510 A. Ft. 1,590 A. Ft. 1963 to 1964 129 A. Ft. 143 A. Ft. 139 A. Ft. 329 A. Ft. 160 A. Ft. 1964 to 1965 137 A. Ft. 140 A. Ft. 31 A. Ft. 40 A. Ft. 68 A. Pt. 1965 to 1966 518 A. Ft. 4, 390 A. Ft. 9, 740 A Ft. 28, 160 A. Ft. 9,360 A. Ft.
-3 WATER YEAR STATION NOV. DEC, JAN, FEB. MAR
LAMAR (continued) 1966 to 1967 371 A. Ft. 1,140 A. Ft. 1, 600 A. Ft. 1, 170 A. Ft. 281 A. Ft. 1967 to 1968 1,220 A. Ft. 2,200 A. Ft. 2, 560 A. Ft. 689 A. Ft. 335 A. Ft. 1968 to 1969 304 A. Ft. 299 A. Ft. 479 A Ft. 414 A. Ft. 1,260 A. Ft.
STATE LINE 1960 to 1961 3, 610 A. Ft. 4, 690 A. Ft. 6, 350 A. Ft. 6,310 A. Ft. 6, 540 A. Ft. 1961 to 1962 8, 870 A. Ft. 8,450 A. Ft. 7, 120 A Ft. 8, 110 A. Ft. 7, 810 A. Ft. 1962 to 1963 3,280 A. Ft. 6, 840 A. Ft. 5, 660 A. Ft. 8,880 A. Ft. 7,320 A. Ft. 1963 to 1964 1,740 A. Ft. 2, 130 A. Ft. 3, 190 A. Ft. 3,520 A. Ft. 2, 900 A. Ft. 1964 to 1965 1,040 A. Ft. 1,250 A Ft. 1,240 A. Ft. 1,520 A. Ft. 1,780 A. Ft. 1965 to 1966 13, 630 A. Pt. 16, 610 A. Ft. 16, 840 A. Ft. 33, 410 A. Ft. 19, 270 A. Ft. 1966 to 1967 6, 580 A Ft. 6,730 A. Ft. 7, 730 A. Ft. 7, 200 A. Pt. 5, 580 A. Ft. 1967 to 1968 8,460 A. Ft. 7, 890 A. Ft. 8, 450 A. Ft. 6,950 A. Ft. 3,570 A. Ft. 1968 to 1969 5, 490 A. Ft. 5,910 A. Ft. 7, 100 A. Ft. 5, 540 A. Ft. 6,590 A. Ft.
-4
4 7/4///-10 taw.
The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District recognized in it's letter of October 22, 1904 reserved storage space in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project for the following entities.
A. Pre-existing contracts with Twin Lakes Company, the Cities of Pueblo, Colorado Spr.ings and Aurora and CF&I. Company.
lb:%,100 a.i. 0+ space for both project and non--project, water stored b/ municipal entities. Such reserved space is subject to storage of a ma;:imum of 159 4 000 a. f. of project water and when filled with project water is considered "firm" space. The letter does not limit the term "project water" to trans-mountain water.
1) Would a question of spill priority arise if the 19,000 a.f. was partially filled with "native" project water?
2) A further question arises as to whether or not "native" project water would spill non-project water in the reserved space.
7:,) Is trans-mountain project water needed if it merely displaces non-project water in reserved space?
C. 70,000 a.f. of space for agricultural water stored during the winter period.
1) Winter water shall be dumped on May 1st in the year -following storage.
2) The reserved space for 70,000 a.f. of winter storage is on a par with the reserved space for 159,000 a.f. of municipal storage of project water and the letter specifies that the 70 4 000 a-4'. of reserved space for winter storage shall be reduced by irrigated acreage purchased by cities with the amount Sc' reduced added to the 159,000 a. +.. of reserved space for municipal storage of project water. It is obvious that the letter intended that winter water be considered project water when stored under a winter water storage program. Would it not than follow that the reserved space be considered "firm" space when filled with project water.
a). Agricultural interests protested when water stored in reserved winter water project space was spilled for native project water. Protest was not made for water stored in e>:cess of reserved space.
b) Is either trans-mountain or native project water needed if it merely displaces project water stored in reserved space?
Should the Water Court be asked to clarify,the meaning of "reserved space" contained in the letter of October 22, 1984? If filled reserved space does not become firm space, it is little different than unreserved space for that type of water! United States Department /—
BUREAU OF RECLANIATI )N. io.),A 7 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O2t DEC 1 1969
iN Ft PLY REF ER TO: 735 t;e..etalia
Memorandum NOV 3 1969
To: Secretary of the Interior Through: Assistant Secretary, Water and Power Development
From: C.ommissioner of Reclamation
I Subject: Financial Position.of Interests to be Served by the Municipal and Industrial Water Delivery Systems-- Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado
This constitutes my report on the financial position of the communities that would receive service from the municipal and industrial water delivery system of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado. The report presents evidence concerning the feasibility of these communities to construct the single-purpose municipal and industrial water supply works necessary to deliver water to their distribution systems. The report serves to fulfill the lequirement of section 1(c) of Public Law 8/-590 which authorized construction of the project. That section states:
"No part of the single-purpose municipal and industrial water supply works invol';led in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project shall be constructed by the Secretary in the absence of evidence satisfac- tory to him that it would be infeasible for the communities involved to construct the works themselves, singly or jointly. In the event it is determined that these works, or any of them, are to be constructed by the Secretary, a contract providing, among other . things, for payment of the actual cost thereof, with interest as hereinafter provided, as rapidly as is consistent with the contracting parties' ability to pay, but in any event, within fifty years from the time the works are first available for the delivery of water, and for assumption by the contracting parties of the care, operation, maintenance, and replacement of the works shall be a condition precedent to construction thereof."
Our study indicates that there is a definite need for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project's municipal and industrial water delivery system. That system, as authorized by Public Law 87-590, would contain two distinct's,cgments. One segment would consist of a conduit providing project water for municipal and industrial needs to communities in the Arkansas Valley in Colorado below Pueblo Dam. The other segment would consist of a conduit from the Arkansas River near Canon City, Colorado, to deliver project water to Colorado Springs. These conduits are now officially referred to as the Arkansas Valley Conduit and the Fountain Valley Conduit, respectively, and their general location is depicted on the enclosed map of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The municipal and industrial water delivery system would alleviate many of the domestic water problems in the Arkansas Valley and Fountain Valley areas through the estimated average annual delivery of 20,500 acre-feet of project water. In many instances, particularly in the Arkansas Valley, the total dissolved solids and hardness levels of water pumped from shallow wells for domestic and municipal use do not meet recommended standards for human consumption and, in - a number of cases, the water is not suitable for livestock consump- tion or irrigation use. Some municipalities have curtailed pumping from the valley alluviums and have resorted to springs, where available, or drilled very deep wells into the Dakota sandstone formation. Water from these sources is of somewhat better quality, but is limited in quantity. • Many of the water associations obtain water from deep wells. The unincorporated areas, as well as individual farmers and others, use underground cisterns for domestic needs. Usually, underground the numerous cisterns throughout the valleys require replenishing by hauling water long distances from other available sources, resulting in an extremely high cost for water. Without the con- struction of the authorized project conduits, these same problems can be expected to continue throughout the two valley areas no since better alternatives are known to exist.
--The-city of Pueblo and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District have jointly contracted with a private firm to make a feasibility study for treating and softening the city's water and water deliverable by the Arkansas Valley Conduit. This additional service, which would be financed, constructed, and administered by the city of Pueblo, would, when combined with project service, essentially eliminate the existing major domestic water problems in the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District below Pueblo Dam.
2 The Fountain Valley Conduit, as originally conceived, would deliver project water to Colorado Springs. Since 1950, the population of Colorado Springs and the Fountain Valley area has almost tripled. Indications are that as much as one-fourth of the pipeline capacity would be required to serve coil:.unities outside of Colorado Springs. In addition, Colorado Springs serves the constantly increasing needs of military installations, now comprising about 18 percent of its total yearly water consumption. The original service plan has been outdated because of (1) intensive growth of the city of Colorado Springs, (2) rapid and constant growth of outlying communities, and (3) extensive buildup of military personnel stationed at Ent Air Force Base, NORAD, Fort Carson, and the Air Force Academy. Colorado Springs and the other communities of the Fountain Valley area are located within the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District knd pay over 50 percent of the total ad valorem taxes levied by the district. Most have expressed interest in obtaining project water, and demands are imminent in view of the overappropriation of Fountain Creek flows, restrictive State ground-water legislation, and in certain cases water quality problems.
Our examination of the financial position of interests to be served by the Fountain Valley and the Arkansas Valley Conduits clearly demonstrates that it would be infeasible for the communities and other interests that would be served by these two conduits to finance the construction under the shorter terms and higher interest rates required for non-Federal financing. The cost of the total water delivery system was estimated to be $13,761,000 at the time of authorization in August 1962. Essentially no detailed planning or costing for the system has been done since that time except a minor updating of the costs to $14,824,000 reflected in the fiscal year 1971 budget astimate. This estimate includes $8,981,000 for the Arkansas Valley Conduit and $5,843,000 for the Fountain Valley Conduit.
Arkansas Valley Conduit
The interests to be served by the Arkansas Valley Conduit, individually or in combination, do not have the financial capability nor could they obtain the financing at reasonable rates required to construct the works at the current estimated cost of $8,931,000. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the average tax levy of the 14 municipalities in the valley (1958-1966)is 76.51 mills compared to a State average of 63.9 mills and that their bonding
3 ability is inadequate. Bonding companies advise that a practical bonded indebtedness ratio, i.e., assessed valuation versus bonded indebtedness, should not exceed 20 percent--10 percent for a school district, which is a statutory limitation, and 10 percent for municipal indebtedness. Projected 1970 assessed valuation of the communities is $26,872,000. The existing general obligation bonded indebtedness, excluding school district indebtedness, is $305,500. Assuming no more general obligation issues, the ratio of assessed valuation to bonded indebtedness will be 1.1 percent at that time. Therefore, 8.9 percent of the projected assessed valuation, or about $2,392,000, is a practical limitation of additional debt which could be incurred collectively as a general obligation of the co-,-lunities. The estimated cost of a pipeline to distribute water from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project would substantially exceed this amount. .
Fountain Valley Conduit
It would be infeasible for the potential beneficiaries privately to finance and construct the Fountain Valley Conduit. Virtually all communities except Colorado Spring r3 have a bonded debt to assessed valuation ratio that would exceed recommended levels. Those few communities having capabilities to incur further indebtedness would be unable to underwrite costs that approach their equitable share of a conduit with non-Federal financing.
In the case of Colorado Springs proper, all of the Department of Public Utilities' capital improvements, including water develop- ments, are financed by revenue bond issues which are established by city ordinance. General obligation issues which are amortized by tax revenues cannot be legally invoked by the Department of Public Utilities. Information supplied by that department supports its position that it would be infeasible for the department to finance its proportionate share of the conduit from private sources. The department has shown that it does not have funds in its current financial structure to construct the conduit. To include the privately financed cost of the conduit in the department's future capital improvement program would require increased bonding ability. This would, in turn, further increase utility rates and require a change in the city ordinance governing bonding indebtedness.
The major capital improvements scheduled by the Colorado Springs Department of Public Utilities during the 1967-1973 period are estimated to require $61,930,000 exclusive of a supply conduit for Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water. Based on projected revenues at the present rate schedules, an estimated additional debt obligation capacity of only *53,189,077 would accuraulatively'exist during that period. Accordingly, the Department of Public Utilities will lack a debt obligation capacity of *8,743,923 to meet its projected capital improvement progrcm. Any capital investment required to finance the conduit would cause a further restriction of its scheduled capital improvement program.
Substantial increases in water service rates were made during the 1954-1967 period and a rate increase is contemplated again in 1971. The expected revenue from the increased rates will not be sufficient to meet the scheduled capital improvement obligations. Therefore, an amendment to the city ordinance increasing the department's bonding ability will be necessary to finance the scheduled program. It is the opinion of the Department of Public Utilities that its future bonding ability will probably be inadequate to satisfy both the presently scheduled capital improvement program and the cost of the municipal conduit.
About one-fourth of the Fountain Valley Conduit capacity and costs would be used and assigned to communities other than Colorado Springs. Like the Arkansas Valley communities, they have no reasonable recourse but to request Federal construction.
Revenue bonds are not generally used by the municipalities in the area to finance water systems since they command a rate of interest about 1 percent higher than general obligation bonds. This differ- -ential exists because a general obligation bond is supported in whole or in part by an ad valorem tax which provides a higher form of guarantee to the bond purchaser that retirement can be accomplished without default.
Our study of the financial position of the various entities to undertake the construction of the water supply conduit system was based on conditions prevailing in 1967 and early 1968. Recent reexamination indicates that current conditions for alternative financing by revenue or general obligation bonds are even less attractive than at the time our studies were made. The interest rates for these issues are now substantially higher and their marketability has decreased. In some instances municipalities have found it necessary to recall proposed issues for these reasons. Currently, municipal general obligation and revenue bond issues range from 5 to 6-1/2 percent, depending on community standing and
5 other factors. Actually, the communities have even less capability to finance and construct the works themselves than was shown by our earlier studies because of escalating costs and interest rates. The district and the concerned communities are exploring alterna- tive means of financial *assistance under the loan and grant programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. If available, such a grant or loan might be more advantageous to the local interests than construction of the municipal water conduits as features of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. A finding that it would be infeasible for local interests to finance the construc- tion of the required works would not preclude such construction under a Federal grant or loan program for which they might be eligible. It would, however, insure that the required facilities would be planned and constructed as authorized and that the critical municipal and industrial water needs would be satisfied and the economic and social benefits stemming therefrom would be realized.
While the full extent of service from the Arkansas Valley and Fountain Valley Conduits has not been determined, the main areas of interest are evident. They include municipalities, towns, unincorporated settlements, water associations, and individual farms and ranchec. The qu.?stien is not wheth:1: tIle authorized water supply system is a feasible development but rather whether the interests to be served have the ability to secure financing .at reasonable rates of interest and terms of repayment in view of their financial resources, outstanding obligations, and requirement for other capital improvements necessary to remain viable in a dynamic economic and social environment. After thoroughly examining and considering pertinent factors as set forth herein, this report finds that:
(1) There is a critical need for the service which would be provided by the Arkansas Valley and Fountain Valley Conduits
(2) It would be infeasible for the communities involved to construct these works themselves, either singly or jointly.
(3) Desirable financing and repayment terms are available under existing Reclamation laws for the construction of the required works as a feature of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District would be the logical legal contracting entity for all of the interests concerned.
6 With your approval and adoption of the finding in this report, we plan to initiate steps which will detail a co.aplete project plan, including (1) current cost estLaates, (2) determination of firm interest, (3) doternination of cost of water to the potential users and (4) presentation of repayment plans. This plan would then be the basis for discussions with water users to determine future courses of action.
I recommend that you approve and adopt this, finding, as required by section 1(c) of Public Law 87-590, and prior to construction of the affected facilities, so infora! the President, through the Bureau of the Budget, and the interested congressional committees.
IARMSVONG Int\
Enclosure
Approved and adopted:
ISA: WALTER 1. H1CKEL
Secretary of the Interior
CC: ional Director, Denver, Colorado Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado
7 26 27 •
Section 1102.—is a disclaimer of intent being the municipal and indust Hal tvater supply aqueducts for mar- to increase authorized ap- River propriations for the Colorado River Storage Project or the Rio keting water in the Fountain Valley area and in the .1.rkansas Grande Project. Section 110.3.—is a disclaimer of intent to alter, till Elbert Piimppa Stora!re Powerplant is a 100 megawatt facil- amend, repeal. mod- deigned the outset to ify or be in conflict with the provisions of the Rio Grande Compact. ity Nvhieli is under construction. It, was from permit the installation of a seconl pitinp-g-enerat or unit at such time development. The COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS as power market considerations warranted such a second g-enerating unit is not cOnsidered to be an sauthorized feature The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs adopted two amend- of the projeet. Title XII provides such authorization. ments to Section 1101 of Title XI. These amendments were for the purpose of correcting clerical errors and effected no substantive change .11 -Sill ICATIoN AND NEED Eon LEGI.:LATIoN in the legislation. for Fryin.man- COSTS The growth in power demands in the niariaet area Arkansas 1)0w-el' ill( lentos t hat there will he a need for 9:;0 megawatts The Committee estimates that the costs resulting from enactment of peaking power in the State of Colorado alone by I.).0.4 (:enerating of Title XI will be less than $100 per year for ten years. capacity used strictly for this purpose is limited at this time to 414 ineg•;twatts. thus indicating a potent lab shortage in peakiw, capability DEPARTMENTAL REPoRT of :1'4010- :jou megawatts hy 1te,O. The authori./.ed Illlit :it . 101111.1- Elhort Will re(lIlce this shorta!re to about .100 meg:INV:11(S Then' are 114) other The report of the Department of the Interior on II.R. 1677, the bill major peaking plants planned in the •State at this time except the related to Title XI, is dated June 17, 197-1. It appears at the end of second unit at :\lount F,lhert. Its authorization and installation will this report. furt her reduce the shorta!re but will not eliminate it. In formation available to the Commit tee on Interior and Insular .1 trai rs indicates TITLE XH--FRYINGPAN-ARICANSAS Pima reis Cononsoo that. the production from this. facility w.ill be fully marketable. prob- ably to.preferenee customers, by the time it can he brought on the lint__ runrosn OF TILE LEGISLATION --Mit-. other major unfinished elements of the l•-r -itigpait-Arl:ai.-.1s Proiect are the municipal and industrial water supply aqueducts. In Thu pnrpose of Title XII is to authorize sufficient additional ap- aecordance with the term, of the orie.inal 1,Hat ion, these fu,.i h: i‘.'s propriations to complete the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado, unless the Soeretary of the Interior foals awl to give specific legislative approval to a are not to Le. constructed second 100,000 kilowatt that loeal interests are unable to finance their conAruet ion. The Sec- generating. unit in the Mt. Elbert Pumped .Storage Powerplant now made such It tindin!r in ltst;o. Th,( •,021,111:itt,:e under construction. retary of the interior r understands that. Seeivtar,v expects to review this 101(11 11f before ,undertakitor 11 he confirms the 19co findiegs, appro- nu:Km:num) or THE the aqueducts,theI. Lectsr..vrtos- spriations authority will be required to enable federal coostruction The Frying-pan-Arkansas Project, Colorado. was authorized in 196:2 of the aqueducts. If it subsemie-ittly appears that local interests shoidd : ‘..‘eas000si s )0 the a ppropriat ions authorized by I and has beet; under construction continuously since that. Hine. 'Hie i finance ;those lines, of audio: ized plan ink rt 111. i(n of water from the headwaters Title XII would not be required. The Committee on Interior owl In- y sleethl be "Tr:tilted but hereby of the Fryingpall lii:"01% a tributary or the Colorado River: their con- sular Affairs believes that this tuithorif veyance and diversion by tunnel through the Continental Divide to the expresses the view that the outhorizat ion should be expressly reserved headwaters of the Arkah5:1s River; conintin!din!r with regnlated Ar- for constructing. the Fountain Valley and Arkansas Valley Aquednets kansas River rum,a. for the generation of hydroelectric pm-er. mu- ands,should not be utilized for other features of the project. nicipal and industrial water supply, irrigation. fish and wildlife, and recreation. 'Ii e legislation authorized appropriations in the amount ECON0311C .‘ ND FINANCIAL FAcT4,Its of $170.00+000 .It 1961 price at levels, plus at stuns as re- sale of hydroeleetric power and rounieipal and quired by increases in applicable engineering cost indexes. hulexing Revenues from the industrial water supply have always been regarded as es,-ential to the the oftrinal authorization, as permitted by law, increases the fill- financial feasibility of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project although they thOliZal permitted by law, authorized ion, as increases the appropria- sales and ad valorem proceeds. tions to $34s,000,000 at .January 1974 price levels. The original legis- are supplementary to irrigation water At the level of appropriations authorized by Title XII, the Frying- lation also authorizes additional appropriations without limit as re- financially viable project which can quired for implementing plans for recreation and fish and wildlife pan-Arkansas Project remains a return the reimbursable costs as prescribed by law. The project also development. indicated by the benefit-cost ratio of 1.43. Construction has been completed or initiated on most of the major remains fully justified, as elements of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project—the major exception 28 29 HIGHLIGHTS OF I ILE XII Section work has been performed on behalf of unproved fish pa:;sage facili- 1201.—authorizes appropriations in the amount, 000.1.00 at. January of $432,- ties. by the Federal government. but the systems do not function 1974 price. levels. This is aecomplished by amend- effectively. ing the Act. of August 10, 1902, which authorized appropriations in In connection with the construction the amount of $17tt,00n,000 at. of major npstream dams for June 1901 price levels. The Committee flood control the Federal governnient. hrougl determined that the original amount, t I the Corps of Engineers, if indexed to January 1974 is 1inishin7 a major fish hatchery facility which price levels, results in an authorization of will substantially Section $342,000,000. Accordingly, increase the fish population of the llf)gue River and make 1201, provides new appropriations authority passage Section of $90,000,000. problems at Savage Rapids Dam more critical than has heretofore 1202.—specilleally provides legislative authority stallation of the for the in- been t he ease. second 100 megawatt unit in the Mount Pumped Storage Generating Elbert Plant. NEED FOR TILE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE AMENDMENT l'he major problem at Savage Rapids .1):iin is the loss of substan- tial numbers The Committee on Interior of fish due to improper design and fimetionin!, of the and Insular Affairs adopted two amend- existing- passage facilities ments to Title XII. One amendment and the fish screens wIlich prevent the fish corrects an error in punctuation from entering the irrigation pumps. Through and the other is to correct a grammatical error. inq wovements in the fish passage facilities it will be possible to reduce losses of adult tish by 40 percent, lingerlingS by 47, percent and snmlt by COSTS 90 percent. When the upstream fish hatchery becomes fully operative the loss reductions will amount The Committee estimate of costs involved to many thousands of fish annually. XII is S90,000,000, in the enactment of Title the actual sum by which appropriations thorized to be increased. are au- motitionrs OF' EITLE XIII Sretion 1.701.--fonveys basic authority for construction DEPARTMENTAL mronTs way; identifies of the fish- scope of construction by referenee to a technical re- The report of the port ; and requires that operation and maintenance Department of the Interior on II.R. 13816, he performed by related bill, is dated (Tune the owners of the dam under procedures established by .25. 1974. It appears at the end of this report. Oregon. the State of (.1 ion 1302.—authorizes CHANGES IN EXISTING appropriations in the amount of S1.000 LAW at April 1974 price levels with indexing authority for inflation or Changes in existing law, dellat ion. as a result of enactment of Title XII, are presented at tlie end of this report. ,S'ertion 1303.—provides for the construction bursable. cost to be nonreim- .TITLE XIII—SAVACE RAPIDS FISHWAY, OREGON COSTS The Committee estimate of costs involved in the PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION XIII $851,000, enactment of Title is the amount authorized to be appropriated. The purpose of Title XIII is to anthorize the Secretary of the Interior to eonstruct an adequate fish passage DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Federally facility at the non- owned Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River in Oregon. The report of the Department of the bill Interior on II.fl. 14755. the BACKGROUND related to Title XIII, is dated July 16, l'Olt THE LEGTcL MON of this report.. 1974. It appears at the end Savarre Rapids Dam is a non-Federally constructed and operated TITLE structure on the Rogue River in southern Oregon. It was XIV—FF:ASIBILITY STUDY AUTHORITIES by the Grants constructed Pass Irrigation Dist riet in 19-21 and SPEW'S to irrigation water divert PURPOSE to approximately 9,000 acres of irrigated land. OF THE LEGIsLATION Rogue River is an The important. fishery stream, both as a spawning babi- The tat for salmon and purpose of Title XIV is to authorize the Secretary as a high-quality sport fishing resource for steel terior to of the In- head trout. Savage Rapids - conduct feasibility investigations under Reclamation Dam has a history of adversely affecting three potential resource law of fish migration and causing loss water development projects. A feasibility of both adult fish and fingerlings. Some vestigation is defined as work in- leading to the preparation of a report intended to be used as the basis for authorization construction. Specific of a project for legislative authorization of such investigations 4
68 69
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no on December 5, 1969, sufficient t hoe has pa,-,sed so that we believe it)1 objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of would be _aporapria 1,_r,,-- r tii(-7.!s._ N:ret,irv_to. ntake.,a, new -iFiTTininatton I the Administration's program. OS to leasibility_ befere .further. .__.. funds,. . _._are _ _ autlio:i: _ . ,.ed.. . We I liereitire : Sincerely yours, -reeommend that the $55,444,000 tor theg•ost of addilional muniripal ; JACK HORTON, and indu-arial farilit ie.--; not be militarized and that the bill be emended l: Assistant Secretary. by striking the figure 5395,000,000 and inserting, in liett the figure ., $340.000,000. __...... i \\i Iii respect to the second one-hundred megawatt It. Elbert U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, powerplant unit, the Bureau of Reclamation hos undertaken a power OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, marketing study which (.011(.111(1es that a sati.:factorY market exists Washington., D.C., June 25, 1974. for that unit's electricity and that it; orderly completion would Hon. JAMES A. HALEY, contribute toward meeting. the ,area*; energy requirements. Chairman. comin).ftee on Interior and Insular Affairs, In accordance with the National Environmental Poliey Act of 1969, D.C. House of Representatires, 1V15hington, the Bureau of Reclamation has prepared a draft enViroliltielaal iltlpileI DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to YolIT request for the views SIIIIelnellI 011 I lie overall Fryilezp,in-Arkansas project. This statement of this Department on II.R. 13titt1, a bill "To amend the Act author- was released to the pnblic on \larch IS, 1974, :111(1 publir hearings were izing the Fryingpan-Arkansas Federal reclamation project, Colorado, held in Aspen and Pueblo, Colorpdo ill Nlay 1974. The final statement in order to increase the amount authorized for such project (Act of is evpreted to be.complete by .1:tnitary 1975. lit addition, final environ- Auiit PI, 1962; 7(1 St at. 3S9) and to authorize construction of a mental impact statements have been prepared and filed with the second one hundred-megawatt unit at the Mount Elbert pumped Council on Environmental Quality on three speeific project feat tires-- storage powerplant site Of such project." the iiouiit, Elbert Pumped-Storage Powerphint (filed October 19, We recommend that the bill be enacted, if amended as set forth 1971), the Pecblo Dam and Reservoir (filed June 2, 1972) and the herein to limit the increased level of authorized appropriations to Noll hside( *oiler hi n System (filed July 19, 1973). The environmental $340 million. nniniet shttement for the Nlount Elbert Pumped-Storage Powerplant The bill would increase the authorized appropriations for the Fry- cover: the plant facilities and installation of both the first unit which ingpan-Arkansas Federal reclainati(m project in 'olorado front is ander construction and the second unit which would be authorized .5170 IllilhioR (.Iune 1961 prices) to $395 million (Jatinary 1973 prices). by 11.1t. 1310. (In January 1973 prices, this increase would be from about $313.5 The ()Mee of Management and Budget has is Secretary advised that there million to $395 million). The bill woidd also authorize the no objection to the presentation of this report front the standpoint of of the Interior to construct, operate and maintain a second one hun- the Administration's program. dred-wegawatt unit at the 1\ lount Elbert pumped storage powerplant Sincerely yours, site of tile Fryingpon-Arkansas project. JACK HORTON, legi-Aation established The Fryingpon-Arkansas project authorizing Assidani Siert:tau. $170 million appropriation ceiling with adjustments for fluctuations a Total estimated project in construction costs. Section 4 of that legislation also authorized cost (January 1973 prices) 541:0. 632. 000 and fish appropriation of the additional sums necessar.N- for recreation Public Law S7-590, sec. 7: and seenery conservation. Subsegnently P.1 A. 87-874 Ant liorized amount Onne 1901 prices) 170. 000, 000 authorized certain highway improvements in connection with the Additional cost index to January 1973 pri 143, 517, 000 project. Subt >oat Attached hereto is it summary statement of project costs based on 313, 517,000 January 1973 prices. As it indicates, an additional appropriation Additional ceiling rerinired: authorization of $25,500,000 is required for the installation of the Additimial ceiling required for installation of the 2d 100 tnegawat t• powerplent unit end we support 11w:4:mai Is 25, 500, 000 second one-hundred Additi.,nal cost ceiling required for the municipal and indus- increasing the level of mit horized appropriations to cover that lullOtlilt. trial &livery $55,444,000 55, 441. 000 The .1).111 would, however, also include an additional appropriation authorization to cover the additional cost of municipal Subtotal SO, 9-11, 000 jndust rill! delivery facilities which are part of the project. and Project cost ceiling (January 1973 prices) 39 °lid, 000 'his increase is associated with the increfesed capacities of the delivery systems and modifications to the systems to sell-0 moro Public Law 57-590, -cc. 4: anticipated. The projnct authorizing legislation Rerreatirin 31. 311,000 out it is than originally Fish and wildlife the Socret•ary of the Interior determine before proceeding 9, :,1(1, 000 required that Scenery conservation 23, 620, 000 With each part of the single-purpose municipal and industrial water supply works involved in the project that it would be infeasible for the Subtotal 64, 522, 000 • communities involved to construct the works themselves, either singly Public Law 87-874: highway improvements 1, 649, 000 or jointly. Although the Secretary of the Interior made such a finding Total estimated project cost 460, 632, 000 70 71
FRYINGPAN•ARHANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO Specifie structural and operational problems has e eaused 11,1) losses, EST:MATED ADDITIO'IAL MAN-YEARS OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT AND EXPENDITURES FOR 1ST 5 FISCAL YEARS delays in migration, and Interruption of the downstream (AS REQUIRED 3Y PUBLIC LAW 84-801) sport fishery. Public Last- 92 -199, dated 1)ecember 15, 1971, authorized 21 fC21-.i- bility 201111V of 1111' Itogue Ris-et' 1st year 2d year 3d year 4th year 5th year Raisin I'roject. l'ass 1)is-ision. ()regon. The investigation is being conducted ill Iwo parts. 'Ube first phase of the Estimated additional nan-years of civilian employ- studs- was undertaken by the l'i,11 anal 1Vilallife Service ment: . and the Ilitretin of; Reclamation in cooperation with other Federal and Executive direction: State and you Executive agencies, -idea-v(1 means a providing' sill interift1 sollIt ion stenographic to the anitdromous fish passage problems at the dam. A, a result of Total, executive direction that study, the 1 \VII 111121%5211: if o11111.1," 111211211.2.21 21 special report entitled Administrative services and support: "Anadrontous Fish Passa,re Improvements, Savage Rapids I)am, Clerical Rogue Properly management River flasitt Project, (irants )tVI-it2I1-01*(1:011." The report w-as released its 1974. The second Total administrative services and support.. 0 0 0 0 0 phase of the inves.tiga- thin is on,roitig :11111 \yin coll-itivr it mon. pvrilintlynt solution to the Substantive (program): prohleto is well :as the Engineering aids 4 16 s 17 14 need for replacing the irrigation dis- Engineers 3 3 7 1 1 ifirc,-, ion 19 12 18 15 j1211111. 2:122,Vilii report .1 1.ef Total,substantive7 ... 1111111021(k 115 1111 illtrs11111 soillt jut1, ift1- 111'oVe(I 111).4 10;1111 fish Total, estimated additional man-years of passage through construction of a new fishway of civilian employment 7 19 12 19 15 on the north side Of the dam, gr,ates for screen and turbine unwatering, additional expenditures: (la 'W11,111'1111) hyl)51,-2 12111,21'0V1`111P1'1174, i111(1 Estimated $200,000 soil Iii 1.1,11 Way repair,: and • Personal services 6100.000 $100,000 0250.000 5350,000 improvement,. The All other 10.000 3.550,000 1.350.000 11,700.000 II, 300,000 total constritetion cost of the facilities isestintated to be S.;769.001 (.lantiary 1973 estimated additional expenditures 110,000 3,850,000 1,600,1300 12,050,000 11,500,000 prices). No additional operation and Total, Ill aintenance costs are expected. ['sing it 15-year peri(el or a11:11.‘-sis • will hi interest rail., annual benefits are estimated at $160,10() U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. and :annual costs sit $79,n00. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, 13ectiii,e the dam is not Federallv owned. the Administration be- li'ashington,11.('., July 10, 1.974. hest's, there is no bat-zis for special I..'ederal financing of as the facilities, JANtEs A. II ALEN-, contemplated by Ii. H. 1.1755. Responsibility for maintaining (.1,e;rmatfr, (;,non..tlet, on ,;or .iffoirs, House qf Repre- adequate passage for 11-11 FP-A,: with State or local entitie,-- govern- siont;ris, ll'aNh;ii,Ji4tn, mental or pris-ate. Federal assistance is, 1155-0%-er, available other prograins under 11,11011(1,-; your request for the -views directed at fish and wildlife conservation. I)F:stt NI it. Cu.% the Amtalromous specifically, of this Department on I I.H. 147.55, a bill "To authorize the Secretary Fish Conser\-ation Act (16 U.S.(". 757 if.). If the pa5sa7e propo:ed farilities are to Ix. of Ow I ti14.1'14)1' 14) 4011-4 1,1111 11(.4,s,41Ty 1M111(1 1'0111011S fish constructed with Federal funding, the Grants Patss Itogue possibility of obtaining assistance under that farililies at si,.V;1',1,1' 11:111111-: Dom, pursued. legislation should be praaject, Oregon. Mule!' Frilt.111,1 reclamation laWs." the contemplated 'Ile Office or Nlatingetnent and NVI• recommend that the bill not la. enacted, since Budget has advised that there is no vonstrut•ted tinder the Anadromoits hsh (.'onserva- objection to the presentation of this report from the fateilities eon 1)1. Administ rat ion's standpoint of the tion Act appropriate cost sharing arrant,l,rentents. program. authorizes and directs Oa* Secretary of the Interior to Sincerely yours, II. l. 1-1755 Rapids construct interim attach-, anions fi,11 passage facilities at Savage JOHN KY!, 1.);tin whiell part of Ow Gram, Pass Division of the Rogue River Assistant Secretary. Basin project ni The l':it.iruies would be construrted sub- Nlarch 1974 joint special report of stantially in arrord.inte ‘vil II U.S. DEPARTM ENT OF THE 1 1)eportment's Bureau of Hcclamation and the Fish and NVildlife NTF.ItIOR, this maintenance OFFICE. OF THE SECRET.'.Ity, 1f':1)011,...1 1)11111o,; for operation and SCTV.Ice. Prf)(141 111''1 ,; r111(1 between ii l).(.'., Jane 2S, 1974. of the ti-b facilities would be governed 11N" 2111 ag-reement lion. JANIEs A. INI.Ey, State Game( .ommission1 and tile (Irani,: Pass Irrigation Cha;rman, Committee on lottr;or the ()re!ron appropriations .,.(.,;,..: 1 i no arid 111,41or .1.11a;rs, Distrirt. The hill would authorize tionreitnbursable 1.1)(,, Of Representatives, Wash;hgfon, ni:. January 1973 prices. of 8769,000 for Ow werk, based on ft :\ IDE R. CHAIRMAN: This Grants Pass Irrigation District responds to your request for our views Savage Rapids Dam was built by the g IIrv— .R. 13890, a bill "To authorize the water is diverted from the reservoir to serve Interior t Secretary of the in 1921. Irrigation additional conduct a total water management study, Solari° approximately 9,000 acres in the Grants Pass Valley plus California." County, Valley. There have been serious anadromous We acreage in Evans Creek construction. have no objection to enactment of the bill. fish passage and protection problems at the dam since its
114.,• • • United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE P.O. BOX 449 LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539-0449
IN REPLY REFER TO: E-100 NOV - 5 1985
Mr Charles L Thomson General Manager Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District PO Box 440 Pueblo CO 81002
Dear Tommy:
Considering the high storage levels in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs we have concluded that there will be no room for storage of winter water after approximately June 1, 1986. This lack of storage space will cause the winter storage users to have a very limited opportunity to use any winter water stored before it would have to be spilled to make room for other project purposes. We recognize that this situation makes it very risky for the winter water users to embark on a winter storage program this winter.
In order to reduce the risk, we are willing to hold up to 30,000 acre-feet of native winter flow in temporary storage in project reservoirs until March 1, 1986. At that time the users will need to make a firm decision as to whether or not they will want all or part of this temporarily stored water placed into winter storage subject to the terms of the contract between the District and the United States. Should the users decide they want this water placed in winter storage then they will be fully obligated to pay the $3.20 per acre-foot storage fee. Should they elect not to place this water in winter storage there will be no storage fee and the water will be promptly released to the river.
This offer to temporarily store the water without charge is being made because of the unusual storage position this year and will be considered precedent for future operations. Sincerely yours,
;Aasc.)
Raymond H. Willms Project Manager TAKE PRIDE IN United States Department of the Interior AMERICA BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Great Plains Region EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE P.O. Box 449 Loveland, Colorado 80639-0449 IN REPLY REFER TO: MAR 3 01990 RECEIVED E-700
APR 2 990
SOLtRECTFN COLORA.X) 'OMR Fry-Ark Project Review Comittee:
This letter and the enclosed information was developed to provide additional details concerning the potential for establishing dedicated storage in Pueblo Reservoir for the Winter Water Storage Program.
We have defined dedicated storage to be a finite amount of storage within Pueblo Reservoir, reserved for use by the Winter Water Storage Program participants, that would not be sLbjected to releases to create storage capacity for other project purposes. In the event that the amount of stored winter water is less than the dedicated storage in any given year, storage of other waters, as necessary, would be permitted in the remaining storage.
In my letter of November 8, 1989 the results of thirteen operational scenarios were discussed and displayed. Enclosed is a table entitled, "Fryingpan- Arkansas Project Operations Scenarios", dated November 2, 1989, that was enclosed with the letter.
Scenarios I through VIII reflect various levels of municipal demand for project water; have the same estimated irrigation demand; and have either no dedicated storage or up to 40,000 acre-feet of dedicated storage for the Winter Water Storage Program (Scenario VIII has 30,000 acre-feet).
The average annual storable winter water in the studies is estimated to be 27,500 acre-feet for the direct flow entities during the 20-year study period, 1966 through 1985. The amount ranges from 14,100 (1978) to 43,700 (1985) acre-feet.
Spills of winter water are a result of the following:
1. Need to evacuate the joint-use pool pursuant to the Pueblo Reservoir, flood control criteria.
2 Need to create space to store project water.
3. Requirement to release unused winter water remaining from previous year on May 1.
4. A combination within a given year of 1, 2, and 3 above.
The table entitled, "Winter Water Spills", presents a summary of the number of years in which spills occurred by scenario and the number of times a spill occurred as a result of a particular cause. 2
The data indicates that a large number of the spills are a ,esult of unused winter water from the previous year remaining on May 1. S'nce the scenarios reflect the use of a finite demand for supplemental irrigation water, there are a number of years in which the amount of winter water available exceeds the estimated demand. This is particularly true in thos( scenarios that have dedicated storage. Obviously, the Winter Water Storage Program participants have the best sense of their water needs, and I would eTect that little, if any, unused water would remain under real-time conditifIls that would become subject to release on May 1.
Therefore, the establishment of dedicated storage wo.id significantly reduce the frequency that the need to evacuate the joint-ye pool and/or create space for storage of project water would cause a spill of winter water. This is particularly true in those scenarios having the lower municipal demand (i.e. I, II, V, and VI).
The adoption of an amount of dedicated storage is not without its implications. The foremost of which is that the frequency of foregoing diversion of available West Slope water increa,es. Any reduction in new water available in a given year reduces the amount that may be allocated to municipal and irrigation entities. However, this may not be a significant factor until such time as the municipal demand for project water approaches 21,000 acre-feet (not expected until after the year 2000).
Another implication is that the irrigatioi entities participating in the Winter Water Storage Program may use les project water on the average, since the supply of winter water would be more reliable with the establishment of dedicated storage. This would result in less revenues from the sale and use of project water.
Since the frequency of spill of winter water tends to decrease as the demand for and use of project water increases, the establishment of dedicated storage for the Winter Water Storage Program may be something that is only needed for an interim period, i.e., ten or fifteen years. Periodic reviews could be required and provisions to modify the amount of dedicated storage following such reviews could be defined. The review could coincide with existing review at four year intervals of the pa.ments for project water and/or winter water storage.
As a result of the improved scrvice provided by the project facilities to the Winter Water Storage Program participants, a surcharge could be added to the cost currently associated wiih the storage of winter water ($3.20 per acre- foot). This surcharge coul be based upon generating the same total revenues from the irrigation entitir, participating in the program with dedicated storage as would have been expected to be generated without dedicated storage over a period of time. The surcharge could be reviewed periodically and adjusted as determined to be necessary. Surcharge revenues would be applied to the Fryingpan-Arkanss Project costs allocated to irrigation.
The table entitled, "Potential Winter Water Storage Program Surcharge", presents an approach to developing a surcharge. Comparison of the quantities of average project water delivered for irrigation under Scenarios I (28,700 3/30/90
FRY-ARK PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Raymond D. Nixon Steven J. Witte 2519 Prairie Road Division Engineer Colorado Springs CO 80909 Water Division No. 2 Post Office Box 5728 Ralph Adkins Pueblo CO 81002-5728 Post Office Box 1928 Pueblo CO 81002 Phil Boawn Project Engineer Edward W. Bailey U.S. Corps of Engineers Manager, Water Division Post Office Box 294 City of Colorado Springs Pueblo CO 81002 Post Office Box 1103 Colorado Springs CO 80901 Charles L. Thomson General Manager Alan C. Hamel Southeastern Colorado Executive Director Water Conservancy District Board of Water Works Post Office Box 440 of Pueblo Pueblo CO 81002 Post Office Box 400 Pueblo CO 81002 Steven R. Clark Project Manager Frank Milenski Eastern Colorado Projects Office 23064 Road BB U.S. Bureau of Reclamation La Junta CO 81050 Post Office Box 449 Loveland CO 80539 Lee W. Simpson St. Charles Mesa Water Rick Kidd Association Acting Chief, Pueblo Field Division 1397 South Aspen U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Pueblo CO 81007 Post Office Box 515 Pueblo CO 81002 Roger Weidelman U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Carl Genova Post Office Box 449 33032 South Road Loveland CO 80539 Pueblo CO 81006
Doug Cain U.S. Geological Survey Post Office Box 1524 Pueblo CO 81003 3 acre-feet) and II (23,100 acre-feet) indicates that there is an average reduction in the delivery of project water for irrigation of 5,600 acre-feet per year. At $8.00 per acre-foot (current cost of project water) this amounts to $44,800 per year less project water sale revenue. If it is assumed that the average amount of winter water to be stored is 27,500 acre-feet per year, a surcharge of $1.63 per acre-foot would generate approximately the same amount of revenue on the average. This would result in a new total cost per acre-foot of winter water stored of approximately $4.83 ($3.20 + $1.63).
The information herein is presented to foster discussion among the Winter Water Storage Program participants, the Fry-Ark Project Review Committee, and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Should the program participants and the district wish to pursue the establishment of dedicated storage for the Winter Water Storage Program, Reclamation stands ready to cooperate.
Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. 5-07-70-W0086 addresses payment for storage of winter water and reservoir spills. The establishment of dedicated storage will necessitate the development and execution of a new amendment. Reclamation will also have to meet its responsibilities for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended. Steve and I look forward to meeting with the Fry-Ark Project Review Committee on April 12, 1990. If there are any questions, please call either of us at (303) 667-4410.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Weidelman Chief, Planning Division Enclosures FRYINGPAN ARKANSAS PROJECT 3/30/90 OPERATIONS SCENARIOS
Winter Water Spills
Number of Years by Cause of Spill (Spills may be Triggered in Any Given Year by More Than One Cause)
Number of Years of Winter Evacuation Create Storage Release of Scenario Water Spills of Joint for Prior Year (Municipal Delivery) (Study Period., Use Pool Project Water Unused Water 1966-1985)
I (5,000 A.F.) 10 5 9 1
II (5,000 A.F.) 4 0 1 1/ 4 V (21,000 A.F.) 10 1 8 4
VI (21,000 A.F.) 6 0 1 I/ 6
IV (28,000 A.F.) 8 1 5 4
VII (28,000 A.F.) 6 0 1 1/ 6
VIII (28,000 A.F.) 7 0 3 Z/ 6
III (41,000 A.F.) 8 0 3 6
Scenarios I, III, IV, and V do not have any dedicated storage for the winter water storage program.
Scenario VIII has 30,000 A.F. of dedicated storage.
I/ Amount of winter water in storage exceeded 40,000 acre-feet. Spill of winter water due to the amount stored being greater than 40,000 acre-feet.
\VS Z/ Amount of winter water in storage exceeded 30,000 acre-feet. Spill of winter water due to the amount stored being greater than 30,000 acre-feet. DRAFT 1 1/2/31
MINOAN ARKANSAS PROJECT OPERATIONS SCINAltIO%
II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII
Project Municipal Delivery (A.F./Year)1/ 5,000 5,000 11,000 28,000 21,000 21,000 28,000 28,000 33,000 41,000 55,000 28,000 27,000
Municipal Allocation
56 54 54 67 67 67 53 51 New Water (Z)2/ _ 26 26 83 51 49 Storage (A.10 81,500 81,500 159,000 159,000 81,500 81,500 159,000 159,000 159,000 50,000 159,000 159,000 159,000
Dedicated Storage W.W.S.P. (A.F.) Ho 40,000 No . No Ho 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Set-Aside Storage at Pueblo 00,000. A:LI. No No tlo No No No ho No No No No Yes Yes
Inports Foregone (No. of Years) 9 10 0 3 4 8 4 4 3 1 0 4 4 1.0 5.9 6.1 (1,00C Al.) 13.720.3. 1.6 4.9 8.5_ 5.2 4.6_ 3.0_ _ _ _ Irrigation Shortage (No, of Years) . 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 3 3 6
Spill of Winter Water (No. of Years) 10 4 8 8 10 6 6 7 7 7 8 6 6 (1.000 Al.) 10.5 2.1 6.0 8.7 ' 9.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.2 5.9 7.1 4.7 1.6 - --- _ _ _ Average Winter Water Delivered (1,000 A.F./Year) 16.3_ 24.1 19.4 17.7 16.7 21.7 21.1 21.0 20.4 19.3 17.9_ 21.0 21.1 Percent of Storable Winter Water Delivered(t) 71 74 70 65 76 77 • 59 88 64 61 79 76 76 _ . _ Average Project Water Delivered for Irrigation (1,000 A.F./Year) 17.5 28.7 23.1_ 12.6_ 20.8 23.3 19.7 18.2 18.0 16.1 12.5 3.3_ _ 17.1
1/ No Municipal Shortages occur in these Scenarios. Delivery Equals Demand.
2/ Scenarios X and XI reflect the allocation ot the prior year unallocated project water (old) and current year project water (new). All thc the other scenarios allocate the current year project water (new) only. q. 4
3/30/90
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT
Potential Winter Water Storage
Program Surcharge
Scenario I Scenario II
Average Annual Project Water Delivered for Irrigation (A.F.) 28,700 23,100
Cost of Project Water @ $8.00 per A.F. $229,600 $184,800
Average Annual Amount of Winter Water Stored (A.F.) 27,500 27,500
Cost of Winter Water Stored @ $3.20 $88,000 $88,000 per A.F.
Total Annual Revenue $317,600 $272,800
Difference in Annual Revenue $44,800
Surcharge for Winter Water Stored per acre-foot (44,800/27,500). $1.63
Current cost of storage of Winter Water per acre-foot. $3.20
Total Cost of storage of Winter Water per acre-foot with dedicated storage. $4.83 • TAKE En PRIDE IN United States Department of the Interior AAIERKA BUREAU OF RECLAMATION EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE P.O. BOX 449 LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539-0449 IN REPLY "Maw AN., MM. k • '944v0. . E lUnbor 1990 , I. • \fi -.11T.Wry
ED 1990 Mr. Charles L. Thomson General Manager, Southeastern Colo. 'AP1-77, - - 7: • ' •• Water Conservancy District Box 440 Pueblo CO 81002
Subject: Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Winter Water Storage Program (Reservoir , rat ions)
Dear Mr.
We are enclosing for your information the current status of the Pueblo Reservoir winter water storage program along with the projected risk of spill associated with total winter water stored this season.
The storage of 1990-1991 winter water in Pueblo Reservoir began on November 15, 1990 and has accumulated to 15,280 acre-feet by the end of the month. This in combination with the carryover of 11,990 acre-feet of water stored during the 1989-1990 winter water storage program totals 27,270 acre-feet as of November 30, 1990.
Currently the total combined Fryingpan Arkansas Project (Project) water stored in Turquoise and Twin Lakes exceeds the allocated space by about 5,000 acre- feet. Hence, this water plus an additional amount equal to the anticipated Project water imports for this season will need to be transferred to Pueblo Reservoir prior to spring runoff. The magnitude of Project imports at this time however, cannot be quantified for certain and can only be statistically arrayed based on historical data. This uncertainty is directly related to the projected percent chance of spill of winter water displayed on the enclosed graph.
The current low storage level in Pueblo Reservoir provides considerable vacant space for the storage of winter water with minimal risk of spill. As shown by the graph up to 100,000 acre-feet of winter water could be stored with a less than 10 percent chance of spilling any portion of this amount. The projected percent chance of spill analysis reflects transfer of Project water from upstream storage prior to May 1, 1991 to provide space for storage of imports. In addition, the analysis assumes the evacuation of 1989-1990 winter water in storage by May 1, 1991, no use of 1990-1991 winter water or Project water during the November-May period and no storage of 1939 Decree water. We will continue to provide you with an updated outlook of operations throughout the winter water storage program. Hopefully this information will be of value to the participants as they manage the winter water storage program.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Clark Project Manager
Enclosure () l"I II E • S T I HN COLOR\ I)()
LE6ALFRAGYE—NAcRY KFOR Water Conservancy District WATER PROJECT
1.1 PHONE 544-2040 • P.O. BOX 440 • 905 HIWAY 50 WEST • PUEBLO, COLORADO 81002
April 4, 1975
Honorable Gerald R. Ford President of the United States The White House Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear President Ford:
The members of the Board of Directors of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and I, want to take this opportunity to sincerely than!: you for the confidence you have reposed in the Fry- ingpan-Arkansas Project by recommending an appropriation of $42, 216, 000 for continued construction in FY 1976. We have been anxious to get the Project completed as soon as possible to keep the costs to an absolute minimum, and to provide the benefits which you and your colleagues in Congress approved in 1962. Your Budget will certainly enable the Bureau of Reclamation to accelerate the neces- sary construction.
We would also like to recommend wholeheartedly the Honorable Stan Hathaway, former Governor of the great State of Wyoming, to the Office of Secretary of Interior. Most of us have had many opportun- ities to work with Gov..2rnor Hathaway during his years of service in that position, and before, and we know him to be a learned Attorney who has the unique ability to ferret out fact from fiction, and to re- late the total picture rather than minute components thereof. As Governor he worked closely with all Agencies of Government, the bus- iness sector and the general public, in developing Programs of great service L.) his State, the West and to the Nation. He certainly is a man who can be relied upon for well documented judgment, and for the ability to resolve complex matters in the best interests of the general public. He addressed the Annual Meeting of the Colorado River Water Users Association, in Las Vegas. in November, and was acclaimed ,.,ne of the outstanding speakers ever to address the seven State Organ- ization. As you know, the seven States comprising the Colorado River Honorable Gerald R. Ford April 4, 1975 Page two
Basin do not always agree regarding water matters, but we were all of one mind in proclaiming our confidence in Governor Hathaway.
Respectfully,
Charles L. Thomson General Manager
CLTimb
Sc: Board of Directors, Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. Charles J. Beise, Attorney for the District Honorable Gilbert Stamm, Commissioner of Reclamation Mr. James Ingles, Director, Lower Missouri Region, U. S. B. R. Mr. George Kregger, Project Manager, Fryingpan-Arkansas Proj. SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO LEGAL AGENCY FOR Water Conservancy District FRY-ARK WATER PROJECT
PHONE 544-2040 • P.O. BOX 440 • 905 HIWAY 50 WEST • PUEBLO, COLORADO 81002 AREA CODE 719
February 20, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Trustees, Winter Storage Program
FROM: Charles L. Thomson, Chairman
SUBJECT: Storage Account Report, November 15,1989-February 15, 1990
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is your copy of the report prepared by Mr. Tom Simpson, Engineer- ing Technician, in the office of the Division Engineer, indentifing the amount in individual accounts during the first three months of the 1989- 1990 Winter Storage Program.
Tom advises that he is in the process of balancing the accounts by either not storing in Pueblo Reservoir or actually releasing water stored in ex- cess of the percentage credited to each account. It is obvious from the report that the amount of water accumulated during the first three months of this storage season is less than the previous season, but we are still optimistic we will attain the 130,000 acre-foot figure estimated earlier in the Program.
Very sincerely,
Charles L. Thomson Chairman
CLT/tg enclosures
sc: Board of Directors of the District Mr. Jack Garner, Chief, Pueblo Office, Fry-Ark Project Mr. Steve Witte, Division Engineer, Division 2 Mr. Doug Cain, Subdistrict Chief, Pueblo Office, USGS Mr. Phil Boawn, Project Engineer, Corps of Engineers WINTER WATER
NOV. 15 1989 THRU FEB. 15 1990
THEOR. AMITY 103,106 A. F. THEOR. PUEBLO 100,000 A. F. & SYSTEM 103,106 A. F. TOTAL TRANSIT RESERVOIR CANAL SYSTEM PERCENT SYSTEM HOLBROOK PERCENT SYSTEM THEOR LOSS TOTAL DIVERSION STATUS
BESSEMER 21.50 6012.45 21.50 0. 00 6012.45 0. 00 7228.59 O. 00 1216. 14 HIGHLINE 28.87 8073.46 28.87 0. 00 8073.46 0. 00 9706.48 O. 00 1633. 02 OXFORD 6.96 1946.36 6.96 0. 00 1946.36 O. 00 2340.04 0. 00 393. 69 CATLIN 31.72 8870.46 31.72 0. 00 8870.46 0. 00 10664.69 0.00 1194.23 CONSOLIDATED 9.57 2676.24 9.57 0. 00 2676.24 0. 00 0.00 O. 00 234. 76 RIVERSIDE - WEST PUEBLO L38 385.92 1.38 0. 00 385. 92 0.00 463.97 0.00 78.06 COLORADO 15.01 10377.22 17. 07 0.00 10377. 22 0.00 1000.00 12219.54 2842.32 HOLBROOK 11.97 8275.51 O. 00 14. 05 0.00 8275. 51 0.00 2000.00 2323.00 -3952.51 FORT LYON 53.60 37056.57 50. 88 O. 00 37056. 57 0.00 29648.00 -7408.57 AMITY 19.42 13426.09 O. 00 18.00 0.00 13426. 09 0 00 0.00 0.00 L178.91 _ TOTALS 97100.:: 0.30 0.00 97100.27 0.00 33403.77 44190.54 -1989.96
SYSTEM GRAND TOTAL 97100.27 WATER IN JOHN MARTIN AMITY 14605. 00 FORT LYON O. 00 ',NW BALANCE ACCT. 1989.96 TOTAL TRANSIT LOSS 0 00 CONSOLIDATED 2911.00 CONSOLIDATED 0.00 THE BALANCE ACCOUNT WILL NOT BE DISTRIBUTED UNTIL MAR. 15, 1990 TOTAL 17516.00 TRANSIT LOSS 0.00 PRELIMINARY REPORT SUBJECT TO REVISION oRELImiNARY WINTER WATER PROGRAM
SUMMARY
1 9 9
PUEBLO RESERVOIR (1) WINTER WATER PROGRAM STORAGE DIRECT FLOW ENTITIES (4)
BESSEMER 728.59 BESSEMER 7228.59 HIGHLINE 9706.48 HIGHLINE 9706.48 OXFORD 2340.04 OXFORD 2340.04 CATLIN . 1,)664.69 CATLIN 10664.69 CONSOLIDATED 0.00 CONSOLIDATED 2911.00 RIVERSIDE - 15A RIVERSIDE - WEST PUEBLO 30'., 12 WEST , ;ALO J7 COLORADO 1000.00 HOLBROOK 2000.00 TOTAL 33314.77 FORT LYON 0.00 AMITY 1.00 STORAGE ENTITIES (5) TOTAL 334 )3. 77 COLORADO 13219.54 WINTER WATER PROGRAM OFF -CHANNEL ST,1W,E (2) HOLBROOK 4323.00 OR DIVERSION FOR WINTER APPLICATION FORT LYON 29648.00 AMITY 14605.00 BESSEMER 0.00 HIGHLINE 0.00 TOTAL 61795.54 OXFORD 0.00 CATLIN 0.00 THEORETICAL DIVISION OF DIRECT FLOW CONSOLIDATED 0.00 AND OFF -CHANNEL PARTICIPANTS RIVERSIDE - WEST PUEBLO 0.00 THEORETICAL COLORADO 12219 54 100,000 A. F. SYSTEM HOLBROOK 2323.00 28.8% OF SYSTEM 27391.77 FORT LYON 29648.00 71.2% OF SYSTEM 67718.54 AMITY 0.00 TOT: 10,000 A. " SYSTEM 95110.31 TOTAL 44190.54 AMITY 0.00 JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR (3) HOLBRAK 0.00 WINTER WATER PROGRAM STORAGE THEORETICAL AMITY 14605.00 103,106 A. F. SYSTEM FORT LYON 0.00 25% OF SYSTEM 0.00 0.00 CONSOLIDATED 2911.00 75% OF SYSTEM I) 00 TOTAL 17516.00 TOTV !03,106 A. F. SYSTEM
DISTRIBUTED TOTAL 95110.31 DISTRIBUTED TOTAL 95110.31
(1) REFLECTS .--1RTICIPANTS 7.;ITH PROGRAM WATER IN PUEBLO RE-AVOIR (2) REFLECTS PARTICIPANT , ITH PROGRAM WATER IN PRIVATELY OWNED OFF CHANNEL RESERVOIRS OR PROGRAM WATER DIVERTED FOR WINTER APPLICATION (3) REFLECTS PARTICIPANTS WITH PROGRAM WATER IN JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR (4) REFLECTS TOTAL PROGRAM WATER ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIRECT FLOW PARTICIPANTS (5) REFLECTS TOTAL PROGRAM WATER TTRIBUTABLE TO OFF -CHANNEL STORAGE PARTICIPANTS
TOTAL CONTENTS PUEBLO RESERVOIR 149,731 A. F. TOTAL CONTENTS JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR 57,896 A.F. Colorado Water: The Next 100 Years presented by The Colorado Endowment for the Humanities A program, free and open to the public in Water Division II*
Saturday, March 3, 1990 9:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.
Pueblo Community College 900 West Orman Avenue College Center Ballroom
9:00 a.m. Registration
9:15 - 11:00 a.m. District Judge John Tracey, Water Division II Engineer Steve Witte, and attorney George Vranesh, will make short presentations and engage in discussion with audience.
11:15 - 12:00 a.m. Tommy Thomson, General Manager, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, will discuss water in the Arkansas Valley and the Arkansas River Basin and entertain questions from the audience.
Lunch will be available in the College Center Ballroom for $4.25
12:10 - 1:00 p.m. Ripple Effect: Water In The West". A news program broadcast by KMGH (Channel 7, Denver) on Oct. 26, 1989.
1:00 - 2:15 p.m. Use of water by ancient civilizations will be discussed by anthropologist Dr. William Buckles, University of Southern Colorado, and development of water policies during the last century in Colorado will be addressed by attorney John Carlson.
2:30 - 3:15 p.m. Short talks based on future news headlines will be given by: • Frank Milenski, president, Catlin Canal Company, Rocky Ford • Marcy Morrison, El Paso County Commissioner • Dr. Bernard Smith, veterinarian, Leadville • Sally Ranney, president, American Wilderness Alliance
3:15 - 4:30 p.m. •Dr. James Wescoat, geographer, University of Colorado, Boulder, will summarize the day's program and make suggestions for discussion. •Audience to prepare a statement about the spirit of future water law and policy. Moderator: George Vranesh
The Satellite Monitoring System used to gather information regarding streamflows will be on display in the lobby
'The Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources: Colorado is divided into seven water divisions determined by major river basins and tributaries of the Colorado and South Platte.
If you are planning to attend you may receive a free copy of Colorado Citizen's Water Law Handbook by George Vranesh by contacting Barbara Preskorn, Project Director, Front Range Community College, 3645 W. 112th Ave. Westminster, CO 80030; (303) 466-8811, ext. 434
Name Address
Phone Number CATLIN CANAL COMPANY 917 Elm Avenue ROCKY FORD, COLORADO 81067
October 19, 1988
Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation Department of the Interior 18th & C Streets, NW Washington, DC 20240
Dear Commissioner:
A booklet titled "Suggested Program For Winter Water Storage Fryingpan-Arkansas Project" was presented to stockholders of the various canal companies in the Arkansas Valley on or about December 6, 1971 in an effort to induce such owners of water rights to store water in Pueblo Reservoir. The booklet estimated that there would be capacity in Pueblo Reservoir for storage of an average of 80,300 a.f. of winter water and that, after subtracting evaporation charges of 5,600 a.f. and anticipated spills of 8,800 a.f., there would be a net yield for usable release of winter water from the reservoir of 65,900 a.f. The past 12 years operation of the program has revealed a shortage of storage space for winter water which limited gross average annual storage to 4.5,125 a.f. and, after subtracting evaporation of 406 a.f. and spills of 14,297 a.f., a net yield of usable release from the reservoir of 30,422 a.f. Therefore, the net yield is 46.16% of the original estimate.
In addition to the limited storage space, the Bureau is charging for storage of water which must be spilled, contrary to the original intent of charging storage on a net yield basis. Attention is called to page 6 of the Commissioner of Reclamation's letter of December 11, 1964, addressed to the Secretary of the Interior, in which it was stated: "The ultimate annual payment for winter storage is estimated to average $148,275 based on an average annual release of 65,900- acre-feet of winter-stored water at the rate of $2.25 per acre-foot." (emphasis added). With storage cost presently pegged at $3.20 per a.f., agriculture can ill afford to pay an average of $45,750.00 per year for spilled water.
Four irrigation companies brought to the attention of the Bureau and Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District apparent inequities in the management, operation and charge for storage spage in Pueblo Reservoir. Over a year has passed since the inequities were brought to the attention of proper authorities and, still, the matter has not been resolved. Is it too much to ask for some ongoing protection of storage of winter water?
As president of Catlin Canal Company, I would also like to Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation Department of the Interior October 19, 1988 Page 2
call your attention to the fact that we have 323 shareholders each owning a proportionate share of the water available to the company as each shareholder's shares bear to the total 18,660 shares outstanding. Three entities recently became shareholders by security interest in loans on farm real estate and appurtenant water rights, only to find that they were subject to the Reclamation Act. The three now own in excess of 18% of the shares of the company and will be forced into resale during troubled economic conditions if current restrictions limiting delivery of water to five years of the date of foreclosure are enforced. Would it be possible to have such five year period commence on some index indicating the start of an upswing in economic conditions for the region. Also, only one of the three former lienholders is limited by the old 160 acre limitation. Would it be possible for this one shareholder to make an irrevocable election to come under the 960 acre limitation such as others have done? A little leeway in transition between the old and new Acts by allowing an involuntary acquirer an election may go a long way towards making farm lending acceptable to local lenders! Without such an option for new election, the canal company may be in a position of taking the shareholder's money for water and not be able to deliver on the service for which payment was received, thereby creating a legal question concerning each shareholder's right to a proportionate share of all water available to the company.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Frank Milenski, President
Encl.