coloradowaterplan.com cowaterplan@state.co.us Direct: 303-866-3441 8. Interbasin Projects and Agreements Colorado’s Water Plan promotes statewide cooperation for water supply planning through the following long-term goals: A. Protect Colorado’s ability to fully develop compact entitlements, and continue to support intrastate agreements that strengthen Colorado’s position in interstate negotiations. B. Encourage multi-partner, multi-purpose, cooperative projects through financial incentives and technical support. C. Use the Draft Conceptual Agreement as an integrated package of concepts to:  Encourage environmental resiliency;  Set high conservation standards;  Develop stakeholder support for interstate cooperative solutions; and  Establish conditions for a new multi-purpose and cooperative transmountain diversion project if needed in the future. Colorado is often referred to as “the Headwaters State” because it is the only state in which every major river system starts within the state and then exits to downstream states. Colorado stakeholders created intrastate agreements to help align key parties’ interests and understanding so that Colorado has a united voice when dealing with interstate and federal negotiations and litigation about water exiting the state. This chapter describes some recent examples of intrastate agreements, including the basin roundtable and the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) process. This chapter also examines the next steps and path forward for these critical agreements. DRAFT 8.1 Existing Stakeholder Agreements and Projects Colorado has a number of intrastate agreements among diverse and disparate stakeholders. These agreements benefit the individual stakeholders, but also equip the state to effectively protect state interests in interstate matters. The following are recent examples of intrastate agreements that model a collaborative process for future agreements. Arkansas River Voluntary Flow Agreement A Voluntary Flow Management Program is a unique arrangement between state and federal agencies, nonprofits, water management organizations, and commercial rafting organizations. These agreements are voluntary: the parties are under minimal obligation to participate, but remain involved because the agreement is successful year after year. The Upper Arkansas River voluntary program, first established in 1990, is a partnership between Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Pueblo Board of Water Works, Trout Unlimited, the Arkansas River Outfitters Association, and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Arkansas River voluntary flow agreement helps meet the environmental and recreational needs in the Upper Arkansas basin by providing increased recreational flows on the river and beneficial flows DRAFT Page 1 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements for wildlife. The Bureau of Reclamation’s Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities provide a flow of at least 700 cubic feet per second at the Wellsville gage from July 1st to August 15th, greatly benefiting recreation in the Arkansas River. In addition, during the spring and fall months, the facilities provide optimal conditions for a healthy brown trout fishery. These efforts bolster the recreational economy and bring tourists from all over the world. Colorado River Cooperative Agreement In the fall of 2013, eighteen parties that are reliant on water from the Colorado River finalized the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA). The CRCA represents the culmination of years of negotiation between Denver Water and several Western Slope entities. The goal of the CRCA is to protect Colorado River watersheds, while allowing Denver Water to develop future supplies. Over forty stakeholders including water providers, county commissioners, local municipalities, ski resorts, and environmental groups participated in the process alongside the eighteen signatories. On a river system as complicated as the Colorado, the CRCA represents a new way of looking at water management by considering the interests of as many parties as possible, while encouraging collaboration and innovation. This type of process helps the counties and municipalities more effectively manage environmental and recreational flows. A few examples of cooperative operations under the CRCA are the following Denver Water and Western Slope facilities: Dillon Reservoir, the Moffat Collection System, and the Shoshone power plant protocol. Many BIPs have concerns about local control and multi-purpose collaboration, and the CRCA shows an effective way to address these types of concerns. DRAFT Colorado River System Conservation Program Facing declining levels in Lakes Mead and Powell, four of the largest water providers that depend on Colorado River Basin supplies have joined with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to explore potential long-term solutions. Denver Water, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California have all contributed $2 million to a fund which will be used to finance pilot projects in the basin, with the BOR contributing $3 million. These pilot projects will be geared towards municipalities, industries, and farmers, paying these entities to reduce their use of Colorado River water, thereby potentially increasing levels in the basin’s two largest reservoirs. The program is intended to test and demonstrate the concept of “demand management” in both the upper basin and the lower basin. These cooperative projects could use methods such as temporary fallowing of agricultural endeavors, upgrading to more efficient irrigation practices, reuse of self-supplied industrial water, recycling of municipal supplies to lessen consumptive use, and other possible methods in order to leave more water in the Colorado River. The project supports the concepts that the upper basin states are exploring under the current contingency planning effort, described in Chapter 2.2. The contingency planning effort in the Upper Division States (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico) names demand management as a key strategy for keeping the Lake Powell reservoir level above critically low levels. While the Conservation Program is not specifically tied to the contingency planning effort, it may provide critically important DRAFT Page 2 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements information related to demand management concepts that are being explored under contingency planning. The Program will provide funding for these pilot projects in 2015 and 2016. Considerations for choosing a pilot project include geographic diversity, the schedule for implementation, ease of administration, environmental benefits, and the potential to interface with water users between the project and Lake Powell, for Upper Basin projects. Program projects and management will be handled by the BOR in the Lower Basin, as the BOR serves as river master. In the Upper Basin, projects will be overseen by the Upper Division States, with assistance from the Upper Colorado River Commission. In addition, any project within an Upper Division State may be vetoed by that State’s Commissioner for the Upper Colorado River Commission. Elkhead Reservoir The 2006 enlargement of Elkhead Reservoir is another example of multiple interests collaborating on a project. The Elkhead Reservoir was originally owned by the city of Craig and was constructed to provide energy to the Craig Station Power Plant and to support recreational sport fishing and boating. Multiple stakeholders gathered together to plan an extensive $31 million multi-purpose expansion project that would enhance endangered fish and water flow management. As part of the project, the city of Craig, the Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD), and Colorado Parks and Wildlife formed a joint management of the reservoir. The project was funded through a combination of state funds and stakeholder cost sharing. The Upper Colorado River Recovery Program contributed $13.6 million to the project. The State of Colorado Species Conservation Trust Fund contributed $6.5 million. The remainder of the funding came from CWCB construction loan program and the CRWCD. All parties had an interest in the project because it has multiple purposes. DRAFT The multi-purpose project allocated 5,000 acre-feet of storage for endangered fish management, which provided the Yampa Basin with water to enhance environmental flows. The stakeholders worked together to address the potential conflicts between sport fish and protecting endangered fish species, installing a fish screen. The CRWCD and CWCB collaborated on an adjudicated water right in a critical habitat on the Yampa for “in-river fish habitat and river flow maintenance and enhancement uses, and uses in furtherance of the Recovery Program.” In addition, the project updated existing facilities to meet new uses and needs. Windy Gap Firming Project The Windy Gap Firming Project is collaboration between thirteen northeastern Colorado providers to improve the reliability of water supplies from the Windy Gap Project. The original project began delivering water in 1985. It is operated by Northern Water’s Municipal Subdistrict. The firming project proposes to build a new reservoir on the eastern slope, called Chimney Hollow. Chimney Hollow will provide dedicated storage that would supply a reliable 30,000 acre-feet of water each year. This water will be supplied via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, so the BOR must approve a contract allowing use of federal facilities. The thirteen project participants are committed to addressing environmental impacts caused by the firming project. The subdistrict, on behalf of project participants, spent several years negotiating measures to mitigate environmental impacts. The subdistrict worked with state wildlife biologists to DRAFT Page 3 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements develop the fish and wildlife mitigation plan, which operates to mitigate higher stream temperatures, increase flushing flows to clean sediment in the stream, and provide nutrient removal to offset water quality impacts in Grand Lake and the Colorado River. Federal reviewers incorporated the plan into the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The project participants agreed to voluntary enhancement measures to address concerns with the current condition of aquatic life in the Colorado River. The enhancements include a state-authorized plan to provide $4 million to fund future stream restoration and habitat-related projects on the Colorado River and $250,000 to study a stream bypass around Windy Gap Reservoir. As part of the 1041 permit approved by Grand County, the subdistrict has entered into several agreements with local governments and environmental nonprofits that provide ecological enhancements. The Windy Gap Bypass Funding Agreement provides $2 million to construct a bypass around the reservoir, which is matched by $2 million in funding from the state. An Intergovernmental Agreement between the subdistrict, Grand County, CRWCD, Middle Park Water Conservancy District, and Northwest Colorado Council of Governments provides a reliable water supply to Middle Park to meet their future water needs and provides additional water supplies that Grand County may use for environmental purposes. The collaboration between eastern and western slope entities and state agencies will improve the conditions for aquatic life in the Colorado River and also help the Windy Gap Firming Project progress to meet water supply needs on the eastern slope. WISE Partnership The Water, Infrastructure, and Supply Efficiency (WISE) Partnership serves as an example of how to use infrastructure to meet increasing water demands. The project brings together water providers in the Denver metropolitan area to meet challenges jointly, rather than on an individually. The WISE Partnership explores how existing provider infrastructure can be used to the benefit of all cooperating partners. DRAFT In response to the drought of 2002, Aurora Water began construction on the Prairie Waters Project, an innovative supply and filtration system. The Prairie Waters Project stabilized Aurora’s water supply and created a large system of treatment and water transport infrastructure. Aurora now partners with Denver Water and the members of the South Metro Water Supply Authority on a project that couples the Prairie Waters infrastructure capacity with Denver and Aurora’s unused supply and reusable flows. The partnership steadies water supply in times of drought for these providers and administers the sale of water to South Metro as a new and sustainable supply. The WISE Partnership creates flexibility in the face of hydrologic uncertainty and establishes triggers to modify yields based on available flows. In addition, South Metro Water Supply Authority members use back up water supplies when WISE water is not available. State Funding for Collaborative Projects Funding for opportunities will become more competitive as Colorado moves from the planning phase to the project implementation phase. The BIPs believe that the projects with multi-purpose functions should be prioritized. DRAFT Page 4 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements When examining appropriate projects to fund, the state looks for multiple stakeholder involvement and multiple project purposes. A few examples of state-funded projects are the Chatfield Reallocation project, the Wild and Scenic Alternatives processes, the Animas-La Plata Project, and a collaborative process to assess the best approaches to secure water for the Upper Colorado River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. In addition to providing funding, the state served as a partner in the planning, permitting, and development of operational procedures for the Chatfield Reallocation and Animas La-Plata projects. These projects and processes represent the type of collaboration necessary for future water supply planning in Colorado. Local involvement, stakeholder consultation, innovative practices, and multiple uses will be integral to future successful projects and processes. The BIP and Colorado’s Water Plan processes have engaged communities, stakeholders, and basin roundtables in an unprecedented way. Continuing this engagement will be important for next steps–project implementation. 8.2 Conceptual Intrastate Agreements and Points of Consensus The drought in 2002 illustrated that Colorado did not bring together the necessary stakeholders and technical information to adequately plan for Colorado’s future. In response, Colorado initiated three important efforts: the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI), the Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act, and the Water Supply Reserve Account Grant Program. The Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) (SB03-110) established the technical backbone for statewide planning. The Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act (HB05-1177) created the basin roundtables and the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC). The basin roundtables consist of nine stakeholder groups including the Metro area, Arkansas, Colorado, Gunnison, North Platte, Rio Grande, South Platte, Southwest, and Yampa/White/Green river basins. Members include representatives for the environment, recreation, domestic water suppliers, agriculture, and industry. These members are joined by representatives from each county, municipalities within each county, and conservancy and conservation districts. A basin roundtable may also vote in additional members, who may serve as voting or nonvoting members. The major charge of the basin roundtables is to determine their municipal, industrial, agricultural, environmental, and recreational needs, and identify projects and methods to meet those needs. DRAFT The IBCC is made up of two representatives from each basin roundtable, six governor appointees, two legislative appointees, and the Director of Compact Negotiations. The IBCC’s main charge is to work with the basin roundtables to develop and ratify cross-basin agreements. A detailed list of the IBCC membership is available here. The basin roundtable and IBCC processes have evolved over the years, and several work products were developed to reach consensus across the state. These include:     Statewide Basin Roundtable Summits and the Roadmap documents IBCC 2010 Letter to then outgoing Governor Ritter and then Governor-elect Hickenlooper IBCC Draft No and Low Regrets Action Plan Draft IBCC Conceptual Agreement DRAFT Page 5 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements Statewide Basin Roundtable Summits The three Statewide Basin Roundtable Summits held over the last several years have helped focus Colorado and the hundreds of stakeholders involved in water planning throughout the state. The summits provided an opportunity to learn across basins, make sure that statewide planning is heading in the right direction, and to set the course forward. IBCC 2010 Letter In December of 2010, the IBCC submitted a letter to the Governor. This letter synthesized the IBCC’s ideas and laid the foundation for establishing the No and Low Regrets Action Plan and Conceptual Agreement. The general consensus was the status quo scenario is not a desirable future for Colorado. Much of this work is still relevant today and has helped guide the development of Colorado’s Water Plan. The IBCC wrote, “The enormous challenge of meeting future water needs facing water users and the State requires the collective input of all stakeholders and a collaborative decision-making process that reaches common ground to plan a sustainable water future that meets our numerous and diverse needs.… Our system of water allocation should be guided and supported by a comprehensive framework that will marshal ever-scarcer government resources in a manner that supports economic growth; protects our environment; provides for municipal, agricultural, and industrial needs; and supports rural, recreation, and ecotourism-based economies.” The IBCC highlighted that the current path was not sustainable for Colorado. The IBCC wrote, “status quo will likely lead to large transfers of water out of agriculture resulting in significant loss of agricultural lands, more dried-up streams threatening ecosystems and recreation-based economies, water-inefficient land use decisions, and continued paralysis on water supply projects. We have discussed status quo as the default position--the results that will likely occur if we, the water community, allow current trends to continue unchanged. Inaction is a decision itself, a decision with significant consequences. The general consensus was the status quo scenario is not a desirable future for Colorado.” DRAFT The IBCC wrote about the path forward regarding water supply options: “It is clear that no one strategy can meet Colorado’s growing water needs without harming values important to all Coloradans. Therefore, a mix of solutions is needed. At the IBCC's August 2010 meeting, it agreed that a future mix of water supply solutions should include all four sources to meet the water supply gap in Colorado: conservation, IPPs, agricultural transfers, and new supply development, while also protecting Colorado’s significant water-dependent ecological and recreational resources.” No and Low Regrets Action Plan Based on the dialogue from the November 2012, March 2013, and June 2013 IBCC meetings, as well as numerous subcommittee meetings, a draft No and Low Regrets Action Plan was developed. The draft document reflects 100 percent consensus by the IBCC members and provides a menu of options that the basin roundtables should consider for the BIPs, and by CWCB as a component of Colorado’s Water Plan and Statewide Water Supply Initiative. Scenario planning is a critical part of the No and Low Regrets Actions Plan. Full implementation will occur within the next 10 to 15 years. Without the full implementation of these foundational actions, the gap between water demand and supply will be much greater than originally projected. This means DRAFT Page 6 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements that even under a weak economy scenario, new water supplies would be needed. Under the scenarios in which demands for water are greater and supplies are lower, additional new supplies and agricultural transfers will be needed beyond what was envisioned by the basin roundtables. The IBCC identified the following no and low regrets goals:        Minimize statewide acres transferred (per basin goals) and implement agricultural sharing projects Plan and preserve options for existing and new supply Establish low to medium conservation strategies Implement nonconsumptive projects Have a high success rate for identified projects and processes Implement storage and other infrastructure Implement reuse strategies This Action Plan is incorporated throughout Colorado’s Water Plan and is available here. Draft IBCC Conceptual Agreement A long-standing controversial issue in Colorado is the development of water supply from the Colorado River Basins for use on the eastern slope. It is controversial because of issues such as supply gaps, environmental health, and compact compliance. Table 8-1 shows the opposing viewpoints of the basin roundtables and the BIPs. DRAFT DRAFT Page 7 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements Table 8-1: Colorado River Development - Discussion in Basin Implementation Plans Basin Compact Discussion Transmountain Diversions Arkansas “As an importing and exporting basin, the future of the State’s Colorado River Compact Entitlement directly affects all water uses in the Arkansas Basin;” “In particular, a future without New Supply, as that term is understood in the lexicon of SWSI 2010, is detrimental to the future of agriculture in the Arkansas Basin.”1 Colorado “Continued development from the mainstem of the Colorado River toward full Compact entitlement is not sustainable and will harm all of Colorado.” “In summary, the CBRT does not promote the use of TMDs to meet future water demands without first considering reuse, conservation, and first developing in-basin water supply projects.”2 “1. Future supply of Colorado River water is highly variable and uncertain; therefore any proponent of a new supply project from the Colorado River System must accept the risk of a shortage of supply however the shortage occurs, strictly adhere to the prior appropriation doctrine, and protect existing water uses and communities from adverse impacts resulting from the new supply project. “The ultimate risk from new development of Colorado River System water is over development of Colorado’s entitlement under the Colorado River Compact and Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, resulting in curtailment of water uses in Colorado. However, because Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs have provided drought protection for Upper Basin states, Compact curtailment is not a near term risk. Therefore, in preparing the 2015 Water Plan, risk should be assessed in terms of a shortage of supply resulting in curtailment under Colorado’s prior appropriation system.” Gunnison DRAFT DRAFT 2. It must be explicitly recognized that a new supply development from any location in the Colorado River System affects the entire West Slope, as well as the Front Range diverters. 3. Any new supply project from the Colorado River System must have specifically identified sponsors and beneficiaries, and meet certain minimum criteria”3 North Platte Colorado Compact concerns not addressed within BIP. No position taken on transmountain diversions. “The Rio Grande Basin recognizes that it may take the development of Colorado’s entitlement under the Colorado River Compact to meet Colorado’s water needs.” “The Basin also recognizes that issues across the state are difficult and complex, and is supportive of the seven general areas of agreements under the IBCC, which capture agriculture, environmental and municipal needs. If and when there is a consensus between the Front Range and the West Slope regarding interbasin water transfers the Rio Grande BRT will participate in those discussions and evaluate if additional interbasin transfers are appropriate to meet the significant water needs of the Basin.” 4 “The Metro and South Platte Roundtables believe in strong consideration and preservation of the ability to use Colorado’s entitlement under the Colorado River Compact as we also pursue other strategies to meet our water demands. Investigating, “The South Platte and Metro BRTs are supportive of the on-going IBCC discussions and believe that a wide range of water supply solutions should be carefully considered including continued and expanded water conservation and reuse programs statewide. All Rio Grande South Metro Platte/ DRAFT Page 8 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements preserving, and developing Colorado’s entitlement to Colorado River supplies is beneficial to the state’s economic, social, political and environmental future. This may involve large state-level water projects, or small level projects, each with comprehensive West Slope water supply and environmental and recreational components.” “Additional amounts of Colorado River water supply may be developed within the State’s Colorado River Compact entitlement, especially during wet years and wet cycles. Management techniques such as water banks and methods for temporarily reducing water use during dry conditions are available to manage a warmer and/or drier climate. However, artificially capping development due to a fear of a “compact call” merely shifts future risks to agriculture.” Yampa/ Green White/ “Ideally, a Colorado River supply project(s) would be multipurpose, with associated recreational and environmental benefits. Colorado River supply would be developed in a manner that does not exacerbate compact risks. East slope storage would come from enlarging existing reservoirs, building off-river storage, and using underground storage to minimize riparian impacts. Colorado River supply and east slope storage would form the base of the M&I supply. East slope Agricultural Transfers and conjunctive use of the Denver Basin Aquifer would be used primarily for droughts and drought recovery. Alternative agricultural transfer methods including land and water conservation easements could be used to help maintain agricultural production and the local economic benefits of agriculture.”5 “The Roundtable is concerned about any new transmountain diversion (TMD). A new TMD would increase the risk of a Colorado River Compact call, as well as the risk of contingency measures to address serious conditions such as the inability to generate power from Lake Powell or levels of Lake Mead dropping below Las Vegas’ intake. An increase in such risks jeopardizes the Southwest Basin’s ability to develop water supplies to meet needs in the Southwest Basin and pits additional pressure on the Basin’s agriculture to meet downstream water needs for compact compliance and/or obligations. Therefore, the Roundtable agrees on seven factors to be addressed prior to considering a new TMD.” “The Southwest Basin intends to continue its involvement in two current cross-basin cooperative efforts. One is the IBCC’s effort to develop a conceptual agreement between roundtables regarding how to approach a potential future trans-mountain diversion from the West Slope to the East, including the discussion of a possible Future Use Allocation. Another cross-basin cooperative effort is the Southwestern Water Conservation District’s participation as a member of the Water Bank Working Group to develop a Compact water bank.”6 “The Yampa-White-Green Basin Roundtable recognizes that the overdevelopment of limited Colorado River system water is a serious risk that would impact all users of Colorado River Basin water.” “Thus, before it could be considered by the Yampa-White-Green Basin Roundtable, any proposed trans-mountain diversion out of the Colorado River Basin must undergo a full operational analysis to determine its impact on the entire river system. The analysis must recognize that, within the Colorado River system, the diversion of any “extra” water available during wet years may occur under certain “trigger” conditions of a full (or nearly full) supply in reservoirs designed to carry the Colorado River Basin through a drought. This analysis must be sufficient to determine that the risks of operating project(s) in a junior manner to identified Colorado River Basin needs are understood by all. Such a project should not be funded by the State of Colorado, but by DRAFT Southwest “four legs of the stool plus storage” need to be simultaneously considered as the development of Colorado’s Water Plan continues.” “With respect to downstream flows, the Yampa-White-Green Basin Roundtable recognizes that the Yampa and White Rivers play a significant role in providing water for compliance with the State of Colorado’s downstream obligations, and that this must be recognized in the Colorado Water Plan. The Yampa-White-Green Basin Roundtable also thinks that negotiated equitable apportionment among Colorado River tributary basins must be included in the Interbasin Compact Committee’s agreements and in the Colorado DRAFT Page 9 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements Water Plan, as it was in previous interstate agreements, and envisioned by the HB05-1177 process.” “Accordingly, the Colorado Water Plan must address how a Colorado River compact curtailment or any other administrative action causing curtailment would be applied, and must recognize the negotiated equitable apportionment to the Yampa-White-Green Basin for existing and future development as mentioned above.” interests, public and/or private, willing to accept such operational and financial risk. Prior to undertaking development of a new trans-mountain diversion, the Front Range must first integrate all other water supply solutions including conservation, reuse, and maximize use of its own native water resources and existing transmountain supplies.” “The Yampa-White-Green Basin will not consider a new transmountain diversion until and unless a satisfactory Intrastate Compact and negotiated equitable apportionment of Colorado River supplies is achieved.”7 DRAFT DRAFT Page 10 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements The two BIPs with the greatest divergence are the Colorado and South Platte/Metro BIPs. The Colorado BIP points out the variability in hydrology, stating that transmountain diversions “should be the last ‘tool’ considered as a water supply solution, once the many and complex questions are addressed over hydrology.”8 The South Platte/Metro BIP advocates to “simultaneously advance the consideration and preservation of new Colorado River supply options.”9 Both viewpoints recognize the constraints of water availability and Colorado water law, but differ in how they believe such a project fits into water supply planning. The IBCC’s draft conceptual agreement seeks to find a path forward that preserves the option of developing a new transmountain diversion, while addressing many of the concerns expressed by the Colorado Basin roundtable and others. In 2013, the IBCC focused its discussion on a conceptual framework for future detailed negotiations on a potential new transmountain diversion (TMD). As expressed in the draft agreement, there may be years where additional development is available from the Colorado River system, and some years where this water is not physically available. This discussion stemmed from the No and Low Regrets Action Plan, as the IBCC decided that additional discussion and consideration on this particular issue was necessary. Consensus on the Draft Conceptual Agreement was reached in June of 2014, and was submitted to the CWCB for inclusion in Colorado’s Water Plan. The Draft Conceptual Agreement focused on the following points of consensus: 1. The eastern slope is not looking for firm yield from a new TMD project and would accept hydrologic risk for that project. 2. A new TMD project would be used conjunctively with eastern slope interruptible supply agreements, Denver Basin Aquifer resources, carry-over storage, terminal storage, drought restriction savings, and other non-western slope water sources. DRAFT DRAFT 3. In order to manage when a new TMD will be able to divert, triggers are needed. 4. An insurance policy that protects against involuntary curtailment is needed for existing uses and some reasonable increment of future development in the Colorado River system, but it will not cover a new TMD. 5. Future western slope needs should be accommodated as part of a new TMD project. 6. Colorado will continue its commitment to improve conservation and reuse. 7. Environmental resiliency and recreational needs must be addressed both before, and conjunctively, with a new TMD. The Draft Conceptual Agreement has been incorporated into elements of the BIPs of the Southwest, South Platte/Metro, and Rio Grande roundtables, as a step forward in identifying the myriad of issues associated with such a project. Moving forward, it is crucial to have the basin roundtables and CWCB members participate in further discussion about the Draft Conceptual Agreement to further inform identified discussion points and project considerations. The complete Draft Conceptual Agreement is included in full in Appendix C. Once finalized, these points of consensus may serve as the foundation for any new future transmountain diversion projects seeking state support. These considerations will act as a guide to move a project forward with state support. DRAFT Page 11 of 12 COLORADO’S WATER PLAN /DRAFT Chapter 8: Interbasin Projects and Agreements 8.3 Actions The following are next steps that will support the policies, conceptual agreements, and points of consensus:  CWCB, the Division of Water Resources, and the Attorney General’s Office will protect the ability to fully develop Colorado’s compact entitlements and continue to support intrastate agreements that strengthen Colorado’s position in interstate negotiations.  CWCB will help Colorado prepare for a future with scarcer water supplies (i.e. hope for the best, plan for the worst). The State of Colorado will work with other states to evaluate options to achieve sustainable water solutions that balance development of Colorado’s compact entitlements and risk of a compact deficit. This concept is further described in the IBCC’s conceptual agreement (Appendix C), under point #4. CWCB will also support continued outreach to stakeholders regarding these interstate cooperative solutions.  CWCB will work with stakeholders to refine what conservation targets can be achieved, as addressed in Section 6.3. WestWater Research, CDM Smith, CH2MHILL, Peak Facilitation, Draft Arkansas Basin Implementation Plan (Colorado Springs: WestWater Research, 2014) Section 4-8. 2 SGM, Draft Colorado Basin Implementation Plan (Glenwood Springs: SGM, 2014) 4. 3 Wilson Water Group, Draft North Platte Basin Implementation Plan (Denver: Wilson Water Group, 2014) 39-41. 4 DiNatale Water Consultants, Draft Rio Grande Basin Water Plan (Boulder: DiNatale Water Consultants, 2014) 17. 5 HDR, WestSage Water Consultants, Draft South Platte Basin Implementation Plan (Denver: HDR, West Sage Water Consultants, 2014) Section 4.8.2. 6 Harris Water Engineering, Draft Southwest Basin Implementation Plan (Durango: Harris Water Engineering, 2014) Exec Summary, page 102. 7 AMEC, Draft Yampa/White/Green Basin Implementation Plan (Denver: AMEC, 2014) ii-iii. 8 SGM, Draft Colorado Basin Implementation Plan (Glenwood Springs: SGM, 2014) 45. 9 HDR, WestSage Water Consultants, Draft South Platte Basin Implementation Plan (Denver: HDR, West Sage Water Consultants, 2014) 1-21. 1 DRAFT DRAFT Page 12 of 12