... ,
COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
102 Columbine Building
1845 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
August 30, 1968
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
Members, Colorado Water conservation Board and Colorado
River Advisory committee.
FROM:
Felix L. Sparks, Director.
SUBJECT:
Agenda Item #4, Re Request of Central Colorado Water
Conservancy District for Board Endorsement of
Central-South Platte Project.
At a regular meeting of the Colorado Water Conservation
Board held in Denver on March 27, 1968,
Mr.David J. Miller made
a presentation on behalf of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy
District in which be urged the support of this Board in activating
a study of the Central-South Platte Project as a Bureau of
Recla-mation project. As a result of this request the staff of the Board
was directed to study the proposed Central-South Platte Project
and to make a report thereon.
Aside from the economic feasibility of the project, upon
which we have no information, the proposed Central-South Platte
Project presents two fundamental issues as follows:
1.
The availability of water to the State of Colorado
from the Colorado River under the terms of the Colorado River
Compact and the Upper Colorado River Basin compact.
2.
The legal availability of Colorado River water to
the proposed western Colorado collection system of the
Central-Soutb Platte Project under Colorado state law.
These two fundamental issues are the subject of this
memorandum and are hereinafter discussed in detail.
A recent brochure issued by the Central Colorado Water
Conservancy District proposes the utilization by the district of
storage reservoirs in western Colorado with a total capacity of
about 2.4 million acre-feet and the utilization of storage reser-vbirs in eastern Colorado with a total capacity of about 3.7 million acre-feet. The combined capacity of these proposed reservoirs
would therefore be about 6.1 million acre-feet. This capacity would far exceed the combined capacity of all reservoirs now exist-ing in the state. A total of 25 reservoirs are included in the proposed plan. However, a few of the proposed reservoirs are already in existence, under construction or proposed as parts of other plans. For instance, Denver's Dillon Reservoir is included as part of the overall plan. Apparently, i t is also proposed that the existing Cherry Creek Reservoir be about quadrupled in size, that the Chatfield Dam now under construction be about doubled in size and that the proposed Mount Carbon and Narrows Reservoirs be greatly enlarged.
As part of the presentation to this Board in support of the project i t was stated as follows:
"Basically, we contend that there is 900,000 acre-feet of runoff above the collection system, and of this 750,000 acre-feet can be brought from the Western Slope to the
Eastern Slope without any detriment to the existing appropria-tions on the Western Slope."
In support of this assertion there was placed in the record a document prepared by Mr. Mills E. Bunger, entitled
"Available Water Supply from the Colorado River for the Central Colorado Water Conservancy's Blue River-South Platte Project". Since this document is apparently the basis for the claim that 750,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water is available annually for the proposed project, i t is the subject of this analysis.
In main, this document purports to substantiate its con-clusions in part upon testimony presented in Congress during the recent hearings on the Colorado River Basin Project legislation. Other conclusions are based upon an engineering science unknown to the staff of this Board or upon purported facts of which we have no record.
The document begins by stating that "Using Secretary Udall's February 1, 1968 average virgin flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry for the period 1906-1967 inclusive, at 14,963,000 acre-feet and deducting 7,500,000 for the Lower Basin and 50,000 acre-feet for Upper Arizona, there is left for Colorado 3,836,277 acre-feet."
The Secretary did indeed quote the figure of 14,963,000 acre-feet as Mr. Bunger states. However, the complete record made by the Secretary, as compiled by the Bureau of Reclamation, was that of the assumed average flow the Upper Basin share would be only 5,800,000 acre-feet and that Colorado's share of such amount would be 2,976,000 acre-feet. In short, there is an 860,000
acre-foot annual difference between what the Secretary actually pre-sented and the inference drawn by Mr. Bunger from the
presenta-tion. (Hearings before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of
Repre-sentatives, Ninetieth Congress, 2nd Session, on H.R. 3300, January 30, February 1 and 2, 1968, Serial No. 90-5, page 751). There is also attached hereto as Appendix A a letter from the Bureau of Reclamation on this point.
The Bunger document then goes on to state:
"Deducting Udall's, or rather Bureau of Reclamation's estimate of unaccounted for water or 2,251,000 acre-feet, due to Colorado's use (by the year 2030), there is left 1,585,227 acre-feet of Colorado water unused. Deducting the 570,000 acre-feet average available, above the collec-tion system and available for the Conservancy District's use, there is still left an excess of 1,015,227 acre-feet. 11
The quoted figure of 2,251,000 acre-feet is only a partial one and does not include depletion by either mainstream reservoir evaporation or the five Colorado projects included in
the Colorado River Basin Project. We are assuming that "unaccounted for" water is synonymous with consumptive use. The Bureau's
actual estimate of consumptive use chargeable to the State of Colorado by the year 2030 is 2,976,000 acre-feet. The Bureau estimates that this will be the total amount available to Colo-rado and that the amount left to be developed will be zero. Mr. Bunger concludes on the other hand, that the amount left to be developed will be 1,585,227 acre-feet.
A comparison between the compilation by the Bureau of Reclamation and what has been inferred or deduced by Mr. Bunger from the compilation in his document is as follows:
USBR Bunger Difference 1. Average annual virgin flow
at Lee Ferry (1906-1967) 14,963,000 14,963,000 None 2. Consumptive use available
to State of Colorado 2,976,000 3,836,000 860,000 3. Surplus available to
Colorado after 2030 None 1,585,000 1,585,000
We make no attempt at this point to take issue with any of the figures. The tabulation is presented solely for the pur-pose of setting the record straight as to the testimony presented by the Department of Interior. Since both parties used the same
flow records and the same period of history, the magnitude of difference between the two conclusions as to the availability of water to the State of Colorado is too great to be reconciled.
In order to justify its rather remarkable conclusions concerning the water supply of the Colorado River, the Bunger document implies that there is some type of conspiracy within the State of Colorado to reduce the state's compact allocation. In support of this theme the document states:
"The Bureau of Reclamation figures for West Slope water uses that are unaccounted for, amounts to 1.11
acre-feet per acre irrigated.
The Advisory Committee's estimate of 2.33 is 2.1 times that used by the Bureau of Reclamation and 2.9 times that on the South Platte from actual stream flow records covering many years.
Why anyone:interested in Water Conservation in Colo-rado, the state which furnishes 71% of the entire flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry and which by Compact is entitled to only 51.75% of one half of the total would
further reduce Colorado's share by at least 2.9 times the actual amount is impossible to answer."
The advisory committee referred to is apparently the advisory committee for the Upper Colorado River Commission, of which the State of Colorado is a part. The discrepancy between the consumptive use figures of the engineering advisory committee
pure fiction. No significant differences exist. In general, the figures used by the states, including the State of Colorado, tend to be slightly lower than those used by the Bureau of Reclamation, and not 2.1 times more than the figures used by the Bureau as alleged in the Bunger document.
Following the incredible distortion of the record, the Bunger document proceeds to underscore its point by an even
greater one. To accomplish this feat, the document contains a table entitled "Comparison of consumptive use (unaccounted for water) as figured by Colorado Water Conservancy Board's staff,
and testified-· to· by· Congressman Aspinall and the stream d~pletion table used by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation".
There then follows a tabulation of the consumptive use figures for the Animas-La Plata, Dolores, San Miguel, Dallas Creek and West Divide projects, represented to have been prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation and the staff of this Board, respectively. and made a part of the Congressional hearings on H.R. 3300. The total consumptive use attributed to the Bureau for these projects is 189,985 acre-feet per year. The consumptive use attributed to the staff of this Board is 397,000 acre-feet. It is the clear intent of the Bunger document to show that the staff of this Board has deliberately reduced Colorado's share of the Colorado River by 207,000 acre-feet annually, the difference between the alleged Bureau figures and those of this staff.
As a matter of fact, the computations attributed to the staff of this Board were made ]2y_ the Bureau of Reclamation (page 744 of the Congressional Hearings previously referred to). These same figures are contained in each of the project reports prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation and printed as separate House docu-ments. The consumptive use figure prepared by the staff of this
Board and submitted at the congressional hearings by Congressman Aspinall was 378,000 acre-feet (page 749 of the Congressional Hearings).
In short, instead of the consumptive use figures pre-pared by the staff of this Board being 207,000 acre-feet more
than the Bureau of Reclamation estimate, our figures were actually 19,000 acre-feet less. There could hardly be any misunderstanding on this point since the congressional hearings have been printed in the English language, not to mention the fact that these same consumptive use figures prepared by this staff were presented to Mr. Bunger and to the members of the Central Colorado Water
Aside from the foregoing monumental inaccuracies, the fundamental erroneous assumption in the Bunger report is that the average amount of water available for consumptive use in Colorado under the provisions of the various compacts will be 3,836,277 acre-feet annually. For over fifty years the flow of the Colorado River and the uses made therefrom have been continuously analyzed by a succession of competent engineers and hydrologists from every part of the nation. At this point in history the conclusion is
inescapable that the water available to meet the allocation made to the Upper Division states, based upon historic flows, is
deficient by over one million acre-feet annually.
In 1951 the State of Colorado employed the engineering firm of Leeds, Hill and Jewett, and, at a more recent date in conjunction with the other states of the Upper Colorado River Basin, the engineering firm of Tipton and Kalmbach, both inter-nationally recognized engineering firms in the field of water resources. Each firm was requested to make a determination of
the water supplies that would be available to the State of Colorado from the Colorado River. Innumerable other surveys have been made by various state and federal agencies for the same purpose. The results of these many surveys and studies are remarkably similar. The principal differences in the various studies relate to the
period of history used and the interpretation of the Mexican Treaty requirements. None of these many surveys and studies bears any resemblance to the conclusions drawn in the Bunger document.
Three of the most exhaustive and thorough surveys per-taining to the availability of water to the State of Colorado can be summarized and compared with the Bunger document as follows: Leeds, Hill & Jewett
(1953) 3,100,000
Tipton & Kalmbach (1965' 3,234,000 U.S.B.R. (1968) 3,364,000 Bunger (1968) 3,836,277 It should be noted that the Bureau of Reclamation in its recent presentation to the Congress assumed that Colorado would be
required to deliver a portion of the Mexican Treaty water, to-wit: 388,000 acre-feet annually. The other studies listed do not make this assumption. In order to make the studies comparable, as far as the Mexican Treaty is concerned, the amount of 388,000 has been added to the figure presented by the Bureau.
Both the Bunger document and Bureau of Reclamation con-clusions are drawn from the same historic water supply (1906-1967),
which reflects a more favorable condition than used by either Tipton & Kalmbach or Leeds, Hill & Jewett. When corrected for the same historic water supply, the Tipton conclusion is almost identical with that made by the Bureau of Reclamation. We suspect the same would be true concerning the Leeds, Hill & Jewett report, although we have made no attempt to analyze i t in that light.
With respect to the Me~~ican Treaty, the Tipton report concludes that with the proper accounting of lower basin tribu-taries there should be sufficient water available from the lower basin, together with the 75 million acre-feet ten year delivery
at Lee Ferry, to permit the annual consumptive use of 7.5 m.a.f. in the lower basin and delivery of 1.5 m.a.f. to the Republic of Mexico. The Bureau of Reclamation has taken no firm position con-cerning the Mexican Treaty delivery, but for "planning purposes" has assumed that the Upper Basin will be required to deliver one-half of the Mexican Treaty obligation, to-wit: 750,000 acre-feet annually.
In summary, the most advantageous position for the State of Colorado, based upon the most reliable information available,
is to assume (1) that the historic water supply used by the Bureau of Reclamation {1906-1967) is the appropriate water supply, and
(2) that the Tipton conclusion concerning the Mexican Treaty water delivery is correct. The result demonstrates the availability to the State of Colorado from the Colorado River an average annual consumptive use of 3,364,000 acre-feet. This is the figure which the staff of this Board will hereafter use for planning purposes. Having assumed the availability of 3,364,000 acre-feet of water on an annual consumptive use basis, we have compared this
figure with the existing, authorized and potential consumptive uses from the Colorado River chargeable to the State of Colorado. The result is tabulated in Appendix B to this report. The potential uses for the most part are those uses for which conditional decrees have already been granted by the state courts of Colorado and
which are being actively pursued by the various parties in interest. Many years of exhaustive surveys are reflected in this tabulation. Records of actual water users, the Bureau of Recla-mation, the Soil Conservation Service, the Upper Colorado River Commission, the State Engineer and other appropriate agencies have been reviewed and analyzed in connection with the tabulation. Ex-tensive field work by members of our staff and various consultants has been carried on over a long period of years and is continuing. We know of no significant disagreement with the depletion figures
contained in our tabulation among water users and water agencies of the State of Colorado, other states of the Colorado River Basin or federal agencies, except as contained in the Bunger document.
~ 7()6,,IJt,0
As can be seen from the attachedfAppendix B the total
annual consumptive use is estimated at 3,712,060 acre-feet. When
this is contrasted with the computed available supply of 3,364,000 acre-feet, not only is there no additional water available for the Central-South Platte Project but there is not even sufficient water for all of the projects set forth in the tabulation.
It is our considered opinion that the deficit which we
predict will almost certainly occur before the year 2000. As
contrasted to our predicted deficit by that time, the Bunger document predicts a surplus of 1,585,227 acre-feet by the year
2030. Since this latter prediction is not substantiated by
any-thing other than the prediction itself, i t is beyond our compre-hension.
We turn now to the second fundamental issue presented by the Central-South Platte Project proposal, namely, the legal availability of Colorado River water to the proposed western Colorado collection system of the Central-South Platte Project.
As already stated, Mr. Miller, as a part of his pre-sentation to this Board, represented that there was 750,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water available for diversion to the
proposed Central-South Platte Project. It appears that the
pro-posed project is based in main on a planning report prepared in 1948 by the Bureau of Reclamation for a project then described as
the "Blue River-South Platte Project". This 1948 report by the
Bureau states as follows:
"***After deductions for flows in excess of canal and reservoir capacities, winter flows, seepage, evaporation, and local downstream irrigation requirements, an average of 430,000 acre-feet annually would be available for diversion by project facilities from the following watersheds:
Eagle River . . . . . Piney River . . . Blue River . . . Williams River . . . . 112,500 . . . . 15,600 271,300 30,600 acre-feet fl II II II " It Total 430,000 acre-feet."
The plan was never approved by the State of Colorado,
although i t appeared to have merit. The cities of Denver, Colorado
Springs and Englewood cooperated with the Bureau of Reclamation in its investigation and development of the 1948 planning report. Since the Bureau plan was not accepted by the State of Colorado,
these cities, together with Aurora, have subsequently developed ·
much of the original Bureau plan through the Denver-Blue River and
Homestake Projects. Future plans of these cities, particularly
the City of Denver, contemplate the development of almost all of the remaining water planned for the Blue River-South Platte
Proj-ect. These plans are reflected in the tabulation contained in
Appendix B.
Since 1948, serious and protracted litigation has taken place concerning the waters of the Eagle, Blue and Williams Rivers. In the case involving the Blue River, a consent decree was entered which had the effect of adjudicating all of the surplus water of
the Blue River above Green Mountain Reservoir to three entities, namely, the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, the City of Denver,
and the City of Colorado Springs. The decree also recognized the
rights which the City of Denver has on the Williams Fork River. As a result of protracted litigation concerning the Eagle River, the cities of Denver, Colorado Springs and Aurora
were awarded decrees which essentially developed the water supplies
contemplated by the Bureau of Reclamation from that source. The
recently completed Homestake Project (Colorado Springs and Aurora) involves the annual diversion of an estimated 74,000 acre-feet of water from tributaries of the Eagle River.
In 1956 the City of Englewood requested Mr. Royce J.
Tipton to review the status of the Blue River-South Platte
Proj-ect. In his report to that city, Mr. Tipton stated as follows:
"It is concluded that the project described in the
Planning Report of Region 7, U.S.B.a., for the Blue
River-South Platte Project would not now be feasible because at least 70% of the water contemplated to be imported and made useable by that project is now being developed by other
projects. Intentions of taking additional water supplies,
as evidenced by filings, have developed since Region 7's report was prepared in 1948, so the complete taking of water might be over 85% of the water supply contemplated to be diverted by Region 7's 1948 Planning Report."
indicates that the 750,000 acre-feet mentioned by Mr. Miller
in-cludes water belonging to the City of Denver. This document infers
that the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District is actually
claiming 570,000 acre-feet for its average annual use. The
differ-ence between the two figures is 180,000 acre-feet, and i t is
apparently this amount which the conservancy district concedes to·
the City of Denver through the Roberts Tunnel. However, the City
of Denver by virtue of its existi1~ decrees and filings, both
absolute and conditional, makes a claim to a total of 235,000
acre-feet. It is apparent that there is a major conflict between the
claims of the City of Denver and the Central Colorado Water Con-servancy District concerning the ownership of water to be diverted
through the Roberts Tunnel. We point out here that the City of
Denver has senior rights, and is the owner of the Roberts Tunnel. Even further out is Central's claim to waters of the Williams Fork and Fraser Rivers, together with various tributaries
thereof. This claim completely ignores the fact that the City of
Denver is already diverting approximately 75,000 acre-feet annually from these same sources and contemplates an additional diversion
of 50,000 acre-feet in the future. To protect the rights which i t
already has, the City of Denver was forced to purchase at great expense various western Colorado decrees which were senior to those
of the city. How the Central District can now contend that there
is surplus water from this same source is completely unfathomable. To complicate matters even further, various western Colorado water conservancy districts have filings and conditional decrees on the Piney, Williams Fork and Eagle Rivers, and the various tributaries thereof, which compete even with the City of Denver for the available water, and which are also senior to the claims of the Central District.
It is therefore clear at this point in history that the water supply represented as being legally available to the Central
Colorado Water Conservancy District does not in fact exist. The
Colorado Water Conservation Board is totally lacking in authority to set aside the decrees which have already been awarded by the federal and state courts.
On either of the fundamental issues presented by the
proposed Central-South Platte Project, namely, (1) the availability
of water pursuant to the terms of the Colorado River Compact and (2) the legal availability of water pursuant to the laws of the
State of Colorado, the answer is clearly negative. We can only
A most unfortunate circumstance at this time is that many residents of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District have been led to believe that the impossible schemes presented to them are capable of fulfillment. The kindest thing that we can suggest at this time is that the district utilize its tax funds to employ independent advice as to the true situation presented by the proposed project.
It should be pointed out here that the conclusions drawn in this staff report concerning the Colorado River apply with
equal validity to all present and prospective uses of water from that river within the State of Colorado. The facts are equally unpalatable to water users on both sides of the Continental Divide. Many water development projects on the Colorado River now in the planning stage, in addition to the one proposed by the Central District, will never become a reality in the light of present conditions and past records as we now know them.
The State of Colorado is not alone with this problem since i t is one that is shared by all of the other states of the Colorado River Basin. The past bitter interstate battles among the seven states of the basin have not been predicated upon the knowledge that there is a great surplus of water in the river, but rather upon the firm conviction that there will be a great deficit. In honest recognition of the common problem, the seven states are firmly united in attempting to augment the water sup-plies of the river from other sources. Until such augmentation occurs, the seven states have no illusions about the water short-ages which exist today and which will only become more acute with the passage of time.
To any charge that the State of Colorado has been negli-gent in developing its share of the Colorado River, we simply point out that in the past ten years the authorized or constructed state, municipal and federal projects to utilize the waters of the Colo-rado River within the state have far exceeded the total cumulative efforts of such agencies during the preceding eighty-two year
history of the state. With the active participation of the state's citizens, these efforts will continue. However, they must be
based on some relationship to reality.
As has already been stated, the analysis contained in this report has been based upon a request by the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District that the State of Colorado endorse
its proposed Central-South Platte Project and request the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate feasibility studies thereon. Although
the staff of this Board has concluded that such action is infeasible, there was another premise pointed out by Mr. Miller which should
not be obscured by the long-range problem. In substance this issue
raised by Mr. Miller is as follows:
At the present time i t is estimated that approximately 150,000 acre-feet of water annually will be available to the
Denver-Blue River system as now constructed. Figures furnished
to us by the Board of Water Commissioners of the City and County of Denver indicate that the present diversion from this source is
about 45,000 acre-feet annually. This diversion will obviously
increase with time, but the best estimate now is that the full amount will not be utilized by Denver and the metropolitan area
until about 1985. Initially, therefore, i t appears that there is
a considerable quantity of water which temporarily could be made available through the Denver system for other uses, diminishing as the demands of the metropolitan area increase.
However, as a result of the Blue River decree entered in the Federal District Court for the State of Colorado, diver-sions by the City of Denver are limited to municipal purposes
only. With reference to this decree Mr. Miller stated: "In
Central's view the prohibitions are uneconomic, contrary to the Constitution of Colorado and unenforceable".
The staff of this Board, at the risk of censure, agrees that the discharge of Colorado River water at the state line which would otherwise be available for diversion through the Roberts Tunnel is neither wise nor economic, even though i t does pass
through several power turbines on its journey to Lee Ferry. It
is most obvious that the use of this water on an interim basis for agricultural purposes in eastern Colorado would provide a far
greater economic return to this state. There are agricultural
areas in the South Platte Valley, and particularly in the area covered by the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, which are in desperate need of additional water supplies.
Whether or not the federal Blue River decree is "con-trary to the Constitution of Colorado and unenforceable" is not
for the staff of this Board to decide. However, the present
situation is unfortunate and we can only hope that better reason
will prevail. To that end, the staff of this Board is prepared
to lend its efforts, i f so directed.
In Reply Refer To:
4-460 l.:--750
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation Regional Office - Region 4
P.O. Box 11568
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 April 17, 1968
Felix L. Sparks, D;..rector
Colorado Water Conservation Board
1845 Sherman St~eet
Denver, Colorado 80203
Dear Mr. Sparks:
APPENDIX A
At the March 27, 1968, meeting of the Colorado Water Conservation Board,
Mr. Mills E. Bunger presented a statement on the available water supply from the Colorado River which included figures that are somewhat at variance
with testimony on HR 3300 and similar Colorado River Basin Project legislation
before the House Subcommittee by the Department of the Interior. We would
like to point out these differences for your consideration.
The first two paragraphs of Mr. Bunger's statement read as follows:
11
Ustng Secretary Udall's February 1, 1968, average virgin
flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry for the period
1906-1967 inclusive, at 14,S63,000 acre-feet and deducting
7,500,000 for the Lower Basin and 50,000 acre-feet for
Upper Arizona, there is left for Colorado 3,836,277 acre-feet.
11
Deducting Udall's, or rather Bureau of Reclamation's estimate of unaccounted-for water or 2,251,000 acre-feet,
due to Colorado's use (by the year 2030), there is left
1,585,227 acre-feet of Colorado water unused. Deducting
570,000 acre-feet average available, above the collection
system and available for the Conservancy District's use,
there is still left an excess of 1,015,227 acre-feet."
In the quoted statement, if we assume the phrase "unaccounted-for water"
means "consumptive use," there are several items that have been omitted or at least that have not been considered in computing the remaining water that
would be available to Colorado. These include:
1. All of the virgin flow during the 62-year period,
1906-1967 inclusive, is not useable with existing and
author-ized storage reservoirs. Our studies show an average
annualun-cont:oJ-'.:t,;.blespill from the Upper Basin of 913,000 acre-feet durinb this period.
2. The figure 2,251,000 acre-feet of consumptive use by year 2030 represents our estimate of the consumptive use by existing and authorized projects within the State of Colorado. To this figure must be added Colorado's share of the evaporation losses from the main stem reservoirs and the contemplated uses by currently proposed (both Federal and non-Federal) projects. With these additions, we estimate that by 2030 Colorado users (in terms of
de-pletion at Lee Ferry) will average 2,976,000 acre-feet 81!llllUa lly •
The following table compares Mr. Bunger's figures with those included in Department of the Interior testimony before Congressional Committees:
AVERAGES FOR 62 YEARS, 1906-1967, INCLUSIVE
(Unit: 1,000 acre-feet)
Mr.
Bunger's Department of Statement Interior Statement Virgin Flow Colorado River at Lee Ferry ll~, 963 14,963Deductions
Upper Basin spills* 0 913
Compact delivery at Lee Ferry (Art. III. (d) 7,500 7,500
Share of Mexican Treaty water 0 750
Available for use in Upper Basin
0 7 1l}63 a 0 5,800 0
Arizona Compact apportionment 50 50
Available for other four Upper Basin States 7,413 S,750
Colorado Share (51. 75 percent) 3,836 2,976
Bureau of Reclamation estimate of Colorado
use by year 2030 2,251 2,976
Colorado share of unused Colorado River
water l 535 0
You will note that we have included a delivery of 750,000 acte-feet of water annually at Lee Ferry for delivery to Mexico. This is not an attempt to define the Upper Basin obligation with regard to satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty, but rather a conservative assumption which has been used for planning purposes.
Mr. Bunger also made the following statement on water use rates for the West Slope:
"The Bureau of Reclamation figures for West Slope uses • • • • amounts to 1.11 acre-feet per acre, irrigated."
In support of the figure of 1.11 acre-feet per acre, Mr. Bunger presented a table which he identified as "stream depletion table used by U. S. Bureau of Reclamation" as follows:
new ConsumEtive Use
lands Acre-feet Total
Project acres Eer acre Acre-feet
Animas-La Plata~·, L:-5, 920 O.G9 l:.o, 859
Dolores 35,L~5:) 1.84 57, 729 San Miguel 33,000 0.8L~ 27, 720 West Divide 40,500 1.07 43,335 Dallas Creek 15,750 1.31 20,r.:2 Total 170,620 i:i,1.11 189,985 *Colorado Portion
~·d:Average for 170!620 acres
The numbers used in this table do not coincide with anything presented in
Department of Interior testimony on these five projects. In addition to
consumptive use on the irrigable croplands, we allowed for incidental losses from adjacent noncropped lands, evaporation losses from project reservoirs, and for consumptive use of water made available for municipal and industrial
purposes. The following table, abstracted from the House Subcommittee
Hear-ings of May 9-18, 1966, presents the Bureau of Reclamation's numbers for
these five projects in Colorado.
Project Animas-La Plata Dolores San Miguel West Divide Dallas Creek Total Irrigable New Lands 35,320 32,340 26,420 18,890 ll:., 900 127,870 Acreage Supplemental Supply 20,100 28,660 12,530 21,030 8, 720 Average annual consumptive use 1,000 acre-feet
1/
112.3 87.3 85.0 76.4 37.0 3Sd.Olf
Includes increased use of 2,050 acre-feet per year on existingFlorida Project by water made avail,able from the Animas-La Plata
The basic reports prepared by Bureau of Reclamation show the following average annual consumptive use rates of irrigation water per acre of irrigable cropland: cc: Animas-La Plata Dolores San Miguel West Divide Dallas Creek 1.19 1.30 1.31 1.42 1.46 Sincerely yours, /S/ D. L. Crandall Regiona 1 Director
Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado, Attn: D-203
Commissioner, Attn: 700
Ival V. Goslin, Executive Director
Upper Colorado River Commission
355 South 4th East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
'::OPIED; CWCB
APPENDIX B
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
PRESENT DEPLETIONS CHARGEABLE TO COLORADO Units - 1 000 Acre Feet
Yampa
&
Green Rivers Hayden Steam Plant White RiverGunnison River
Smith Fork Project Paonia Project
Colorado River - Main Stem Collbran Project
Pueblo-Eagle River Diversions Colorado-Big Thompson Project Small Ditches
Colorado Springs-Blue River Denver-Blue River
Denver-Fraser River Denver-Williams Fork Busk-Ivanhoe Tunnel Independence Pass Tunnel Grand River Ditch
Silt Project
Homestake Creek Diversions Main Stem Res. Evaporati~n San Juan & Dolores Rivers
Florida Project TOTAL PRESENT (a} (a) (b} (c} (c) (d) (c) (c) (c) (b} (c} Transmountain Diversions 8 260 1 15 45 65 10 5 38 %0 33 4 504
(a) Engineering Advisory Connnittee Report. (b) Jex Report.
(c) USBR Information and Reports.
Irrig., M&I, 6c Res. Evap, 65 4 34 407 6 10 481 7 6 150 285 16 1,471 Total 65 4 34 407 6 10 481 7 8 260 1 15 45 65
10
5 38 20 6 33 150 1,975(d) SCS Estimate as of 1960 adjusted to 1968 as shown, and includes Little Dolores River Basin.
Transmountain Diversions are from records and estimates of Colorado Springs, Denver Board of Water Commissioners, Colorado State Engineer and Colorado Water Conservation Board.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
ESTIMATED AUTHORIZED OR COMMITTED DEPLETIONS CHARGEABLE TO COLORADO (Subject to Adjustment)
Units - 1 000 Acre Feet
Yampa & Green Rivers
Savery-Pot Hook Project Hayden Steam Plant
Gunnison & Uncompahgre Rivers
Bostwick Park Project Fruitland Mesa Project Dallas Creek Project Colorado River - Main Stem
Fryingpah-Arkansas Project West Divide Project
Homestake and Cross Creek Diversions Pueblo-Eagle River
Colo. Springs-Blue River
Denver-Blue Ri.ver
Denver-Fraser River
)
)
Denver-Williams Fork )
Denver-Eagle & Piney Rivers) Englewood-Moffat Tunnel Independence Pass Tunnel
Dolores, Animas & San Miguel Ri11ers Dolores Project
Animas-La Plata Project
San Miguel Project General
Oil Shale Development Main Stem Res. Evaporation TOTAL AUTHORIZED & COMMITTED
GRAND TOTAL - PKESENT, AUTHORIZED &
COMMITTED (a) Transmountain Diversions 70 41 3 6 240 10
14
384 888 Irrig., M&I,&
Res. Evap.26 8 4 28 37 76 74 112 85 100 192 742 2,219 Total 26 8 4 28 37 70 76 41 3 6 %4-0 10 14 74 112 85 100 192 1, 126 3, 101
(a) Private appropriations. Additional oil shale water will be available from the
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL DEPLETIONS CHARGEABLE TO COLORADO (Subject to Adjustment)
Units - 1 000 Acre Feet
Oil
Project Shale
Total - Present, Authorized & Committed Hayden Steam Plant
*Battlement Mesa *Yellow Jacket
*Bluestone - Phase 1 Bluestone - Phase 2 i:Grand Mesa
*Upper Gunnison (Tomichi Creek, East River
& Ohio Creek)
~\-Basalt
*Lower Yampa (Juniper & Great Northern)
Middle Park (Troublesome, Rabbit Ear & Azure) Upper Yampa (Wessels, Hayden Mesa & Toponas) Eagle Divide (Eagle Divide & Gypsum)
Upper San Juan River {From Jex Report)
Four Counties Export - Yampa Potential Oil Shale Uses
Potential Transmountain Diversions (Denver)
34
Total Irrig., M&I,
&
Res~ Evap. 4 12 47 24 36 23 10 26 102 29 63 19 6 40 34 130Colorado Allocation by Upper Basin Compact Supply Indeterminate. 7,450 x 51.75%
=
3,855. Cumulative Total 3,101 3,105 3, 117 3,164 3,188 3,224 3,247 3,257 3,283 3,385 3,414 3,477 3,496 3,502 3,542 3,576 3,706Additional Oil Shale water will be available from the Yellow Jacket and Bluestone Projects.
*Feasibility study in progress.
CWCB/mb 8/26/68
