Interbasin Compact Committee Basin Roundtables Gunnison Basin Roundtable Meeting Agenda January 5,2015 Holiday Inn Express Montrose, CO 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Roll Call/Introductions Approve Agenda Approve Minutes from 12/1/2014 Meeting (attached) Report fromIBCCRepresentatives (action item) Report fromEducational Committee Report fromCWCB Representative Report fromBIP Committee 1. West Slope Roundtable Agreement/IBCCConceptual Agreement. The Roundtable members will reviewand discuss the results of the Four West Slope Roundtable Meeting. The Roundtable members will also reviewthe attached memo fromBill Trampe with suggestions for items to consider in developing a GBRT position paper for the West Slope Roundtable agreement process. Furthermore, the Colorado Basin Roundtable has asked that the Gunnison Roundtable members reviewits response tothe IBCC Conceptual Agreement, also attached. 2. WSRAProject Proposal - North Fork Farmers Ditch Extension, $35,000 inBasin Account Funds for Ditch Slope Repair and Stabilization (see separate e-mail forwarded fromTomAlvey). 3. WSRAProject Update - Trout Unlimited, Relief Ditch Diversion Modification Project. Cary Denison, Guimison Basin Project Coordinator for Trout Unlimited, will update the roundtable members regarding this project. 4. Gunnison Basin Roundtable - Resignation of TimDecker, Montrose County Representative. Interbasin Compact Committee Gunnison Basin Roundtable Meeting Holiday Inn Express Montrose, Colorado December 1, 2014 Voting Members Present: Thomas Alvey Mike Berry TimDecker Cary Denison Allen Distel Joanne Fagan Steve Fletcher Austin Keiser Wendell Koontz Frank Kugel Dixie Luke John McClow Chuck Mitisek Bill Nesbitt Michelle Pierce Neal Schwieterman Ron Shaver George Sibley Steve Snyder Ken Spann Bill Trampe AdamTurner Martha Whitmore Rufus Wilderson North Fork WCD Tri-County WCD Montrose County Envirormiental Bostwick Park WCD Ouray Municipalities At-Large Member GrandMesa WCD Delta Municipalities At-Large Member At-Large Member House and Senate Ag Committees, CWCB Liaison Ute WCD Gunnison Municipalities Hinsdale Municipalities Recreational At-Large Member At-Large Member Saguache County Upper Gunnison River WCD Colorado River Water Conservation District Local Domestic Water Supplier Ouray County Gunnison County Voting Members Absent: Rick Brinkman David Harold John Justman Henry LeValley Mark Roeber Hugh Sanburg Steve Shea Stan Whinnery Mesa Mimicipalities Montrose Municipalities Mesa County Crawford WCD Delta County Industrial Agricultural Hinsdale County Liaisons andNon-Voting Members Present: Sharon Dunning (Assistant Recorder), David Graf (CDPWLiaison), Bob Hurford (DWRLiaison), David Kanzer (Non-Voting Liaison), Perry Cabot (CSU Extension Liaison), Jedd Sondergard (BLMLiaison). December 1,2014 Public: Brent Gardner-Smith (Aspen Journalism), Beth Karberg (Delta CD), Barbara Biggs (CDMSmith), Julie Nania (HCCA), Brent Newman (CWCB), Aaron Derwingson (TNC), Dan Birch (CRWCD), Steve Schrock (No Chico Brush), Jesse Kruthaupt (TU), Hannah Holm(Water Center at CMU), Michael Dale (NPS/Black Canyon), Sarah Sauter (WSCC), Camille Richard (LFVC), Hal Simpson and Mark McClusky (CDM). Welcome The meeting was calledto order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Michelle Pierce. Roll Call/Introductions Following roll call the meeting was two members short of aquorum. More members arrived and a quorumwas declared tobe present. Approve Agenda TomAlvey requested addition of abrief discussion tothe Agenda onwhere the Gunnison Basin Roundtable stands regarding the Yampa Basin's desire for a "carve out" for future basin development. This topic will be added as Item# 5. Frank Kugel movedto approve the agenda as amended. George Sibley seconded, andthe motion carried unanimously. Approve November 3, 2014 Meeting Minutes Bill Nesbitt moved toaccept the November 3, 2014minutes as circulated. Wendell Koontz seconded, andthe motion carried unanimously. Report fromthe IBCCRepresentatives Bill Trampe hadnoreport but urgedthe members to continue tothink about the integrated conceptual agreement and be prepared for a discussion at the next meeting. The Roundtable was reminded about the upcomingfour west slope roundtable meeting on December 18. Everyone whoplans toattend should RSVPtoprovide numbers for the lunch. The meetingwill take place at Ute Water in Grand Junction starting at 9:00 a.m. Report fromthe Educational Committee George Sibley saidhe met with folks engaged inthe grass root efforts for water education aroimd the Gunnison basin. He is workingtoimprove coordination between those groups to gather input for the water plan. Meetings shouldtake place in February and March. 2 December 1,2014 Report fromthe CWCB Representative John McClowsaidthe CWCBmet aweek ago. The water planwas the main discussion. The directors read the draft ahead of time and submitted written comments. There was some input fromcitizens expressing interest and concerns; the majority of themwere about transmountain diversion and a desire that it not happen again. About 13,000public comments were received fromthe webportal. There will be another revision of the draft before it is readyto goto the Governor December 10. The Board approved the water supply reserve account application fromthe Gunnison Basin Roundtable to fixnd some additional BIPwork, with some conditions. The Town of Olathe application was alsoapproved. They looked at some instreamflowright applications for January, and alsomade some additional loans fromthe construction fund. Report fromthe BIP Committee Frank Kugel saidthere is an effort bythe west slope roundtables tocompare BIPs in advance of the December 18west slope roundtable meeting. They are tryingto schedule aconference call for this advance meeting. Some of the topics they will be discussing are ways tomeet the municipal gap andhowto address IPPs. 1. WSRAProject Update - Henson Creek and Lake Fork Confluence Channel Improvement Project Camille Richard, Executive Director of the Lake Fork Valley Conservancy, gave an update tothe roundtable members regardingthe Henson Creek and Lake Fork Confluence Channel Improvement Project. Ms. Richard showed photos of the progress of the project, and alsoprovided atable showing the project expenditures. 2. WSRAProject Update - Colorado State University, Expansion and Improvement of CoAgMet System. Perry Cabot, Water Resources Specialist for Colorado State University Extension Service, updated Roundtable members onthe WSRAgrant for the Expansion and Improvement of the CoAgMet Systemproject. Mr. Cabot gave abudget synopsis stating there is about $13,000 left in the budget and only about one month left touse it. They recently purchased twonewstations andhe invited input onwhere toinstall them. Mr. Cabot also showed the eRAMs website, which is the interface between several software tools. 3. Colorado Water Bank Project - Update by Aaron Derwingson, Agricultural Outreach Coordinator, TheNature Conservancy. Aaron Derwingson fromThe Nature Conservancy and Dan Birch fromthe Colorado River District updated the Roundtable onwhat has been going oninthe last fewyears regarding aColoradowater bank project. They explained the idea of water banking, why there should be awater bank and discussed howawater bank canwork with irrigation 3 December 1,2014 systems. There was also discussion about weed issues andhowthey are secondary impacts, as well as howtomanage the water bank. There is awater bank work groupcurrently developing a comprehensive proposal for a pilot project. 4. Aspinall Water BankProject - Update byMark McCluskey, Water Resource Engineer, CDMSmith. Mark McCluskey andHal Simpson fromCDMSmith discussed this project funded by the Arkansas andGunnison Basins and the state to evaluate apotential implementation of a water bank project at Blue Mesa/Aspinall. Mark discussed die 5 project tasks and their progress to date, describing the water bank design and management options. The draft report was distributed this past summer. 5. Yampa "Carve out"Idea The Roundtable members discussed the basin's position regardingwhere it stands with differences inthe BIPs, andwhat will be discussed at the west slope roundtable meeting. There should be some compromises for really different positions as there should be unity onthe western slope. Gunnison Basin members want more certainty with existing uses andhowtoprotect those uses. Existing uses should not have toprotect anyfuture uses. The four west slope roundtables meetingwill be onDecember 18 at Ute Water in Grand Junction at 9:00 a.m. An agenda will be sent out for the meeting. There will be aGunnison Basin Roundtable meeting onJanuary 5, 2015. The Project Screening Committee will meet next week. Next Meeting The next regular meeting of the Gunnison Basin Roundtable will be at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, January 5, 2015, at the Holiday IimExpress in Montrose. Adjourn There being no further business to come before the Roundtable, the meeting adjoumed at 7:15 p.m. Mike Berry, Recorder Action Items None. 4 Submitted tothe Gunnison Basin Roundtable byBill Trampe. 1/2/2015 Items to consider in developing GBRTposition paper for WSRT agreement process. The following paper is an attempt to identify issues, and focus discussion and decision making concerning GBRT positions regarding future West Slope consensus meetings and GBRT positions regarding the IBCCConceptual Agreement. REALITY CHECK: Normal or average Colorado River flows do not keep Lake Powell and Lake Mead at sustainable levels. The reality is that we will never see a Compact Curtailment. Society will never let the system become that short of water before something is done to remedy the negative results of decreasing reservoir levels in Powell and Mead. Power head at Powell, municipal water at Las Vegas and Southern California, M&I water for Denver Metro Area arejust the bigger reasons that the systemwill never be allowed to get to administered curtailment level. Politically it will never happen. That is why we have contingency planning happening now? The future consumptive water use inthe Upper Colorado River Basin will be regulated or be controlled by Lake Powell levels. Therefore the State of Colorado should recognize that reality inthe State Water Plan and that all future water development of Colorado River water inthe State of Colorado should be based on that reality. As we attempt to work through issues, consider that a Lake Powell water level will be determined that will trigger various actions, much as is being contemplated withthe current contingency planning effort being undertaken by the Basin States. APROCESSTODEAL WITHTHE REALITY As we develop a process to use in developing Colorado River Water there are different segments of water use to consider. Questions arise as we consider the various segments of use and howwe answer those questions will determine howwe attempt to find resolutionto the use issues. EXISTINGUSES: If no more development occurred, are we satisfied withthe current situation? What does the GBRT proclaimwhen we say protect exiting uses? Is the current situation satisfactory or are we sayingthat we want to firmall existing uses? Is either statement practically possible given current use and hydrology history? In other words are we safe even if there is no further development? Given current hydrology trends it appears that current uses could be injeopardy in the future. The application of some process similar tothe contingency planning effort being undertaken bythe Basin States will trigger an evaluation of the water rights being utilized. At some point, we will have to evaluate the critical need of these many uses because some of themare more important to protect than others. Howdo we identify those critical uses? Critical TMDuses; Critical West Slope (WS) uses. What criteria are used to identify critical uses? What role does the Prior Appropriation Doctrine play inthe process? Pre Compact -Post Compact water rights? What level of protection should the TMDrights have to constrain WSuse? Do we request a sharing of the pain fromthe beneficiaries of the TMDwater? Howdoes the WS share the pain inthis situation? The water bank concept could be an answer for the questions regarding protection tothe critical needs uses on both sides of the divide. Certainly the amount of need identified versus the willingness of participation in the water bank would be important considerations as tothe value of this protective mechanism. Higher levels of municipal conservation could be applied toTMDusers. Higher levels of M&I conservation on the SouthPlatte are detrimental to return flows to the South Platte and thus detrimental toEast Slope Ag. If Front Range water providers have already implemented HIGHLEVELS of conservation as standard operating procedure, when a potential need for protecting critical uses occurs the conservation component is no longer available. If WSagriculture is being curtailed then TMDwater going to agriculture should be curtailed. Ag fallowing and Ag leasing have potential opportunity, but usingthese methods is contrary to our desire to protect existing uses, and sustaining agriculture in our basin and Statewide. The Yampa position is they do not have to share inthis pain. In fact they say other WS uses should protect their uses because their development occurred so much later. Will the hydrology demand for critical needs protection be so great that protecting themis not possible with the water available? Howdoes the Prior Appropriation Doctrine fit withthe Yampa desire? IPPs have a role to play inthe existing use issue. Do they get consideration as critical needs uses? IPPs have been identified onboth sides of the divide. Which IPP's are real? An evaluation and identification of REAL IPP's must be done before considering any IPP as critical. NEWUSES FOR TMD Front Range entities have saidthey will firmtheir development with East Slope water. What Powell level provides a reasonable level of protection that the TMDdoes not threaten WS existing uses? In other words when can the TMD function? Lake Powell is full and spilling? Lake Powell levels are stable at some level above 75%and the hydrology has been increasing for 5consecutive years and is forecast tocontinue incurrent year. Furthermore the amount of diversion of the TMDwill not cause the Lake Powell levels to gobelowthe 75%level. NEWDEVELOPMENT FORWS USES What WS development should occur? Where should it occur? Howis the risk to existing uses (both ES and WS) handled? Should the basin of development be responsible for their risk to ALL existing uses fromthe Colorado River Systemin Colorado? What Powell level triggers the risk management on WSnewdeveloped water? Is that a different level than the level being used for TMD development? When can the newdeveloped water onthe WSbe used without threatening ALL existing uses of Colorado River Systemwater in Colorado? The conditions for WS depletions of the Colorado River Systemshould be the same as those imposed upon newTMDs, with some adjustment pertaining to volume. If the total of all newdevelopment is less than 100,000 Ac. Ft. per year no constraints are applied as long as the 100,000 Ac. Ft. is shared among more than one depletion over more than one of the Round Table Basins. For those new projects that are each greater than 100,000 Ac. Ft. in depletion, the same conditions apply that newTMDs must follow. Each Round Table Basin is responsible for protecting all WS existing uses that are potentially impacted bythat Basin's newdevelopment regardless of the volume of depletion of the project. The Prior Appropriation Doctrine will be applied to all the above ideas. FOLLOWUP Again these comments are submitted to generate discussion. The format may be somewhat difficuh to follow, but questions are posed for each segment and then potential answers are submitted to generate thought about what the future may be like. The numbers used have no particular merit other than to create athought pattern to discuss. This paper is presented in an attempt to start creating a process that allows us to move forward in planning our future without getting totally hung upon numbers. Criticism, additions, deletions or total rejection is welcome. At some point inthe near future the GBRT is going to need tojustify our positions in regard to West Slope issues as well as statewide issues. Please include the motion belowin information to4Basin Roundtable meeting, which was passed unanimously bythe Colorado Basin Roundtable: "Request that the IBCCrecognize that these 7points are not anagreement, that they are a framework for further discussion only. As such it would be premature andinappropriate to include theminthe ColoradoWater Plan. It is also moved that wewill create aworking group fromthis Roundtable todefine our ideas onwhat thewords andconcepts inthe 7Points mean." Sevenpoints aretoovaguewithtoomuchroomfor interpretationinthe future. The ColoradoBasin Roimdtablehas conceptuallydiscussedthe following concems whicharebroadinnature, but whichwill requireadditional discussionandagreement. TheSevenPoints areNOTanagreement andshouldnot bereferred toas such. 1) The East Slope is not looking for firmyield fromanewTMDproject and would accept hydrologic riskfor the project. Avery specific definition of what "hydrologic risk" means must be included and agreed tobyall parties. AnewTMDthat does not rely on "firmyield" is anewconcept in water planning andmust be completely understood and defined. Any future TMDshould include a comprehensive negotiation with the West Slope. More information is need onhowPoint #lwould this be handled; what impact would it have onthe West Slope's ability to develop its future water needs as well as howit might impact the west slope environmental needs and drought stresses. 2) AnewTMDproject be used conjunctively with East Slope interniptible supply agreements, Denver Basin Aquifer resources, carry over storage, drought restriction savings, andother non-West Slope water sources. "77?eIBCC envisions that any entity interested inparticipating ina new TMD would prepare and share a detailed plan for firming theyield of a new TMDindry years using some or all of these options. Thefirming plan should include steps tofirm upnot only the amount of water diverted intheproject, but thefull amount of water used to meet demands... " Does this mean that anewTMDwould be used torecharge depleted Denver Basin Aquifers? If sothis is aninfinite amoimt of water and requires much more detailed information. Is this awater supply for newcustomers or reliability for existing customers? 3) Inorder to managewhen anewTMDwill be abletodivert, triggers are needed. Triggers are intimately related with Point #1. Presumably this point relates to "new triggers" that arenot related tohistoric water lawi.e. Shoshone Outage Protocol. Definition of "newtriggers" needs tobe provided and discussed. Consideration of nonconsumptive needs must be addressed using science toassess streamwide needs on the West Slope. "Newtrigger" must not be solely based onEast Slope needs and usurp local control. 4) An insurance policy that protects against involuntary curtailment is needed for existing uses and some reasonable increment of future development inthe Colorado River system, but it will not cover anewTMD. What kind of insurance policy is anticipated andwhat does "some reasonable" increment of fiiture development inthe ColoradoRiver systemmean? These issues must be fully defined. When you are dealing with water supply for people, the idea of an insiuance policy that protects all needs is impossible??? 5) Future West Slope needs should be accommodated as part of anewTMDproject. It is important that local control be inplace and utilized as part of anynewTMDproject. The Colorado Cooperative Agreement, page 6, Section CHI, provide atemplate of how this couldbe addressed in order toprotect West Slope needs. 6) Colorado will continue its commitment toimprove conservation and reuse. This is an admirable point and shouldbe fully and comprehensively implemented in every basin. This must be quantifiable and measurable andbasin specific. 7) Environmental resiliency and recreational needs must be addressed both before and conjunctively with anewTMD. Anon-consumptive, basin wide streammanagement plan must be developed for each basin sothat scientific information can be utilized to guarantee that this point is met and protective of healthy rivers and streams for future generations and a secure Colorado economy. Environmental resiliency should include consideration of existing impacts and cumulative impacts of anypast and fiiture projects.