Colorado Compact Compliance and RRWCD Replacement Plan

Transcription

1 Slattery Water Engineering, LLC P.O. Box 1149 Parker, CO 8134 (72) Colorado Compact Compliance and RRWCD Replacement Plan April 2, 218 Cheyenne Wells, Colorado Presented by James E. Slattery, P.E.

2 REPUBLICAN RIVER COMPACT 1. Republican River Basin Compact Signed in Colorado Allocation estimated at 54,1 ac-ft/yr (current allocation about 23,) 3. May 1998 Kansas filed complaint against Nebraska in the United States Supreme Court 4. Nebraska countersued Kansas naming Colorado as a formal party in November December 15, 22 Final Settlement Stipulation a. All claims through 22 waived b. Moratorium on Future Groundwater development c. Groundwater model used to calculate stream depletions d. 23 represents first year of five year accounting period e. Allows for Augmentation Wells

3 ^ Minnesota South Dakota Wyoming Iowa ^ Nebraska ^ Cheyenne ^ Lincoln Missouri ^ Colorado Denver Kansas ^ Topeka ^ Santa Fe Oklahoma ^ Oklahoma City New Mexico Legend ^ State Capitals States Republican River Basin High Plains Aquifer Texas Miles Page 19 of 32 Slattery & Hendrix Engineering LLC : Job No. P251 File: Fig 2 - RRB.mxd Date: 5/17/1 Prepared For: RRWCD Figure 2 High Plains Aquifer and Republican River Basin

4

5 Sedgwick County Marks Butte Logan County Weld County Frenchman Phillips County Morgan County Compact Compliance Pipeline W-Y Sand Hills Washington County Yuma County Central Yuma Adams County Arapahoe County Arikaree Douglas County Elbert County Kit Carson County Plains Lincoln County El Paso County Legend Republican River Water Conservation District RRCA Groundwater Model Boundary Counties - Colorado Miles : Hendrix Wai Engineering, Inc. Job No. R161 File: Presentation Figure 1.mxd Date: 2/21/218 Prepared For: RRWCD Cheyenne County Kiowa County Figure 1 East Cheyenne Colorado Republican River Basin Republican River Ground Water Model and Groundwater Management Distrtict Boundaries

6 1,2, Historical Irrigation Pumping in Colorado within RRCA Model Domain 1,, Historical Pumping (ac-ft)/year) 8, 6, 4, 2, Calendar Year Compare Pumping Meter vs Irrig Acreage.xlsx, Chart Pump, 4/1/218

7 North Fork of Republican River at Colorado-Nebraska Stateline 22.4% of Flow Allocated to Colorado 6, North Fork Streamflow Gage 5, 5-Year Running Average 4, Annual Flow (ac-ft) 3, 2, 1, Note 217 values estimated from provisional data Calendar Year Summary of Compact Compliance.xlsx, Fig North Fork, 2/21/218

8 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Arikaree River at Haigler, Nebraska Gage 78.5% of Flow Allocated to Colorado Arikaree Streamflow Gage 5-Year Running Average Summary of Compact Compliance.xlsx, Fig Arikaree, 2/21/218 Annual Flow (ac-ft) Calendar Year

9 1, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, South Fork Republican near Benkleman, Nebraksa Gage 44.4% of Flow Allocated to Colorado South Fork Streamflow Gage 5-Year Running Average Summary of Compact Compliance.xlsx, Fig South Fork, 2/21/218 Annual Flow (ac-ft) Calendar Year

10 5-Year Running Average (acre-feet/year) 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Colorado Consumptive Use and Compact Entitlement (5-Year Running Average) Compact Entitlement Consumptive Use Summary of Compact Compliance.xlsx, Compact Entitlement, 2/21/218

11 Figure 9 Projected Compact Compliance under Current Pumping and No Pumping Conditions Amount Compact Allocation is Exceeded (ac-ft/yr) 2, 18, 16, 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Current Pumping Conditions No Future Pumping starting in Note: The current pumping conditions projection assumes projected pumping conditions are equal to the average pumping for the period and the precipitation recharge is equal to the average. The amount the compact allocation is exceeded is based on the average value for the period and does not reflect the 2,5 ac-ft/yr reduction in Colorado's consumptive use from the surface water rights purchased by Colorado. Page 26 of 32 Figures and Tables for Aug 211.xlsx, Fig 9, 8/15/211

12 Republican River Water Conservation District Crop Reduction Programs by Ground Water Management District in 28 12, 1, EQIP CREP Irrigated 8, Acres 6, 4, 2, Arikaree Central Yuma Frenchman Marks Butte Plains Sand Hills W-Y EQIP 4, , CREP 6,165 4, ,725 1,62 Irrigated 76,549 69,82 75,228 22,243 86,121 73,569 86,9 13,3 Ground Water Management District Outside Mangement Districts Total 12,38 19,284 52,623 Note: Plains acreage does not include 36,13 irrigated acres outside the boundaries of the RRWCD. 28 CREP Program Basin Wide.xls, Management District Chart, 3/3/29

13 Figure 1 Projected Compact Compliance with Compact Compliance Pipeline in Operation 2, 18, 16, 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Amount Compact Allocation is Exceeded (ac-ft/yr) Compact Compliance Pipeline Bonny Reservoir Dry Retire South Fork Surface Water Rights Retire North Fork Surface Water Rights Current Pumping Conditions Note: The current pumping conditions projection assumes projected pumping conditions are equal to the average pumping for the period and the precipitation recharge is equal to the average. The amount the compact allocation is exceeded under current pumping conditions is based on the average value for the period and does not reflect the 2,5 ac-ft/yr reduction in Colorado's consumptive use from the surface water rights purchased by Colorado. Page 27 of 32 Figures and Tables for Aug 211.xlsx, Fig 1, 8/15/211

14 Sand Hills R 43 W A A Wilder 1 Wilder B A5 B6 B4 A3 B7 B1 A1 A6 R 42 W A4 A7 B A2 A B2 T 4 N T 3 N 5-1 Wiley A Central Yuma T 2 N Legend Compact Compliance Wells Existing Irrigation Wells Feeder Pipeline Main Pipeline Historically Irrigated Lands Dried Up Colorado - Nebraska Stateline Management District Colorado Groundwater Irrigated Acres in 25 North Fork Republican River T 1 N Public Land Survey System Miles Page 21 of 32 Slattery & Hendrix Engineering LLC Job No. P251 File: Figure 4 RRB.mxd Date: 5/18/1 Prepared For: RRWCD Figure 4 Location of Compact Compliance Wells and Historically Irrigated Lands Dried Up for the Compact Compliance Pipeline

15 Amount Colorado Exceeded Compact Entitlement 14, 12, Amount Colorado Exceeded Compact Entitlement Compact Compliance Deliveries 1, Acre-feet/year 8, 6, 4, 2, Note: Total underdelivery for the first four years of operation of the CCP for was approximately 1,5 ac-ft. Summary of Compact Compliance.xlsx, Fig Exceed Compact, 2/21/218

16

17 GROUNDWATER MODEL FOR NON-LINEAR HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM A Non-Linear System greatly complicates the Engineering Analysis A Non-Linear System Means sum of the individual parts do not equal the sum of the whole Example below assumes all pumping impacts stream by 1% Stream with flow of 8 prior to any well pumping Well A Pumps 6 Well B Pump 7 If only Well A is turned on Stream Depletion is 6 If only Well B is turned on Stream Depletion in 7 If Well A and Well B are turned on Stream Depletion is 8 Sum of the individual impacts is =13 which is incorrect because there is only 8 in the stream. Correct Answer is 8. In this nonlinear system, pumping impacts can only be determined by analyzing all pumping impacts simultaneously. Page 18 of 59

18 Exhibit 1 - Water Balance for the High Plains Aquifer in Colorado Average Annual Values in ac-ft/yr Recharge from Irrigation, 13,669 Precip Recharge, 43,196 Springs, 6,168 Groundwater inflow to Streams, 31,644 Evaporation from Groundwater, 6,198 Net Boundary Underflow, 98,74 Aquifer Inflow = 56,865 Well Pumping, 744,418 Ground Water Storage Loss = 379,637 Aquifer Outflow = 94,53 5 Composite Groundwater Decline Since 196 Decline (feet) Page 4 of 12

19 Exhibit 2 - Water Balance for the Marks Butte GMD Average Annual Values in ac-ft/yr Recharge from Irrigation, 5,54 Springs, Groundwater inflow to Streams, Evaporation from Groundwater, Net Boundary Underflow, 2,493 Precip Recharge, 16,982 Aquifer Inflow = 22,522 Well Pumping, 31,894 Ground Water Storage Loss = 11,865 Aquifer Outflow = 34,387 5 Composite Groundwater Decline Since 196 Decline (feet) Page 5 of 12 2-Year GWMD Water Budgets xlsx, Chart MB, 1/11/216

20 Exhibit 3 - Water Balance for the Frenchman GMD Average Annual Values in ac-ft/yr Recharge from Irrigation, 18,744 Springs, Groundwater inflow to Streams, Evaporation from Groundwater, Net Boundary Underflow, 22,315 Precip Recharge, 6,67 Aquifer Inflow = 78,811 Well Pumping, 16,494 Ground Water Storage Loss = 49,999 Aquifer Outflow = 128,81 5 Composite Groundwater Decline Since 196 Decline (feet) Page 6 of 12 2-Year GWMD Water Budgets xlsx, Chart FR, 1/11/216

21 Exhibit 4 - Water Balance for the W-Y GMD Average Annual Values in ac-ft/yr Recharge from Irrigation, 18,21 Springs, Groundwater inflow to Streams, Evaporation from Groundwater, Net Boundary Underflow, 13,824 Precip Recharge, 49,92 Aquifer Inflow = 68,112 Well Pumping, 16,172 Ground Water Storage Loss = 51,883 Aquifer Outflow = 119,995 5 Composite Groundwater Decline Since 196 Decline (feet) Page 7 of 12 2-Year GWMD Water Budgets xlsx, Chart WY, 1/11/216

22 Exhibit 5 - Water Balance for the Sandhills GMD Average Annual Values in ac-ft/yr Recharge from Irrigation, 15,19 Precip Recharge, 51,656 Springs, Groundwater inflow to Streams, Evaporation from Groundwater, Net Boundary Underflow, 26,32 Aquifer Inflow = 66,675 Well Pumping, 89,21 Ground Water Storage Loss = 48,648 Aquifer Outflow = 115,323 1 Composite Groundwater Decline Since 196 Decline (feet) Page 8 of 12 2-Year GWMD Water Budgets xlsx, Chart SH, 1/11/216

23 Exhibit 6 - Water Balance for the Central Yuma GMD Average Annual Values in ac-ft/yr Recharge from Irrigation, 16,294 Springs, Groundwater inflow to Streams, 33,97 Precip Recharge, 66,412 Aquifer Inflow = 82,75 Well Pumping, 9,14 Evaporation from Groundwater, 9,278 Ground Water Storage Loss = 41,92 Aquifer Outflow = 124,626 Net Boundary Underflow, 8,762 5 Composite Groundwater Decline Since 196 Decline (feet) Page 9 of 12 2-Year GWMD Water Budgets xlsx, Chart CY, 1/11/216

24 Exhibit 7 - Water Balance for the Arikaree GMD Average Annual Values in ac-ft/yr Recharge from Irrigation, 18,21 Springs, 677 Groundwater inflow to Streams, 1,923 Precip Recharge, 79,734 Evaporation from Groundwater, 49,746 Aquifer Inflow = 97,945 Well Pumping, 12,489 Ground Water Storage Loss = 47,388 Aquifer Outflow = 145,333 Net Boundary Underflow, 5,656 5 Composite Groundwater Decline Since 196 Decline (feet) Page 1 of 12 2-Year GWMD Water Budgets xlsx, Chart AR, 1/11/216

25 Exhibit 8 - Water Balance for the Plains GMD Average Annual Values in ac-ft/yr Groundwater inflow to Streams, Springs, 43 Evaporation from Groundwater, 1,175 Recharge from Irrigation, 32,664 Precip Recharge, 45,33 Net Boundary Underflow, 5,23 Aquifer Inflow = 77,967 Well Pumping, 184,4 Ground Water Storage Loss = 112,39 Aquifer Outflow = 19,6 1 Composite Groundwater Decline Since 196 Decline (feet) Page 11 of 12 2-Year GWMD Water Budgets xlsx, Chart PL, 1/11/216

26 Exhibit 9 - Water Balance for the East Cheyenne GMD Average Annual Values in ac-ft/yr Note, the most southern portion of the GMD is not included in this water balance Recharge from Irrigation, 2,531 Springs, Groundwater inflow to Streams, Evaporation from Groundwater, Precip Recharge, 7,659 Net Boundary Underflow, 5,652 Aquifer Inflow = 1,19 Well Pumping, 14,325 Ground Water Storage Loss = 9,788 Aquifer Outflow = 19,997 5 Composite Groundwater Decline Since 196 Decline (feet) Page 12 of 12 2-Year GWMD Water Budgets xlsx, Chart EC, 1/11/216

27 Total Groundwater Pumping in Colorado (acre-feet) 63,243 36,259, Total Pumping 214 Pumping (1.7% of Total) Graphs for July 215 Presentation.xlsx, Sheet1, 7/8/215