Public MeetingEvans Community Complex

July 12, 2012

Welcome – Gary Herman, President

• Introduction of Board & Staff• Purpose of Meeting• Meeting format – length & questions

Central Water District Presenters

Gary Herman, President Randy Ray, Executive Director Danyelle McCannon, Financial Analyst

SWSI – Statewide Water Supply Initiative

“Key Findings” Action Alternatives

New Water Projects Conservation Reuse Ag Transfers

No Action Alternatives 200,000 acres of irrigated land will

be dried up.

Presentation Overview

Introduction to Central Current problems and challenges facing

Central Proposed solutions Estimated Cost/Tax Impact Next Steps

Introduction to Central

Water Shortage

Central Location Map

What is a conservancy district?

Water Conservancy Districts are: Formed at the request of communities and are

local instruments of state government. Organized under procedures in state district courts

and remain under their jurisdiction. Formed under with the Water Conservancy Act of

1937 and Colorado State Statutes 37-45-10. Have the powers of a public or municipal

corporation.

History of Central

Central – Created in 1965 under the authority of the 1937 Water Conservancy District Act - to benefit property within the District by the construction of water storage, conveyance and other projects for conserving, developing, stabilizing and acquiring the supplies of water for domestic, irrigation, power, manufacturing and other beneficial uses.

Central – The Organization

• 192,396 acres of irrigated land• 15 District Court appointed Directors• 12 Staff Members• Engineering & Legal Firms• Contracts to supply groundwater pumping• Administer & protect water rights• Operate & maintain facilities• Educate youth and adults• Collect water quality data

Conversation vs. Conservancy?

• Conservation Districts– Conservation Districts develop programs to

conserve water supplies available within their District Boundaries

• Conservancy Districts– Conservancy Districts utilize water supplies to

the best use within District Boundaries. Concept of keeping any & all supplies and maximizing the use of the water. This is accomplished with storage primarily.

Past Central Projects/Purchases

• Past Projects: (approx locations)– Narrows Reservoir (Ft. Morgan) – 1968– Hardin Reservoir – (Kersey) -1981– Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation – 1983– Senior Water Right Purchases• Fulton Ditch (Brighton) – 1984• Greeley Irrigation Co (Greeley) – 1987• Greeley Loveland (Loveland) - 1981

Groundwater Recharge

Why Recharge?

• Storage Space Exists

• Replace @ Point of Use

Central Recharge Projects

• Recharge Projects (approx. location)– Kiowa & Miliron (Wiggins) – 1981– Box Elder (Hudson) – 1982– Famers Independent (Platteville) – 1985– Western Mutual (Platteville) – 1986– Lupton Bottoms (Ft. Lupton) – 1994– C-REP Projects (11 Projects) - 2005

Central Storage Projects

• Gravel Pit Storage

• Central 1st U.S. Organization to utilize slurry wall technology for water storage in reclaimed gravel mining areas

• The 1st Project was Siebring Reservoir – west of Greeley, CO

Central Storage Projects

• Current and Future Central Gravel Pit Storage Projects provide environmental benefits.

• Windsor, CO area JoDee & LaPoudre Gravel Pit Storage Projects provide recreational benefits.

• Additional Storage will benefit Irrigated Agriculture and local economies.

Gravel Pit Construction

Central Gravel Pits

– Siebring Reservoir (Greeley)• 1,997 AF – 1987 Appropriation

– JoDee/LaPoudre Reservoir (Windsor)• 1,600 AF – 1990 Appropriation

– Bernhardt Reservoir (Milliken)• 3,000 AF – 2002 Appropriation (17% ownership Central)

– Shores Reservoir (Firestone)• 3,500 AF – 2000 Appropriation (32% ownership Central)• 1,000 AF – 2002 Appropriation (32% ownership Central)

• * GMS owns 83% of Bernhardt, WAS owns 68% of Shores

Central Gravel Pits

• From 1989 to present, Central has Invested $8.5M for Gravel Storage Projects

• 5,547 AF of Storage

Central Gravel Pits

• When can a new gravel pit storage site fill with water?– When no other water right downstream is “calling” for

water.– Frequency of Fill or Diversion?

• Not likely in a drought• Days in an average year• Months in a wet year• Fully consumable water

– Amount Diverted into the Reservoir?• Need large diversion infrastructure

Central Gravel Pits

• When will the water be pumped from the Gravel Pits to the River?– When Augmentation Plans call for it– When Surface supply contracts call for it

• What is the flow rate from the pumps?– Typical discharge rate of 5,000 to 15,000 gpm

• What does a pump station cost?– $500,000 to $1.5M

• What does a diversion structure cost?– $500,000 to $3M

Central Water Needs

• Surface Irrigation Supply– Contracts with Individuals

• Within Central Boundaries• Have or can construct conveyance• Cost to be determined by Central Board

– Contracts with Ditch Companies• Within Central Boundaries• Cost to be determined by Central Board

Central Water Needs

• Augmentation Supply (Replace Consumption of South Platte Basin Groundwater) – Use in GMS & WAS Augmentation Plans

• Sub-Districts of Central• GMS Formed in 1973• WAS Formed in 2004 – GASP Plan

– Contracts with other Augmentation Plans• Within Central Boundaries

Central Water Needs

• Recreational Uses– Benefits

• Increased flows in the South Platte River (Chatfield)– Joint Storage Projects/Partnerships

• Municipalities• County Governments• HOA’s

Central Water Needs

• Groundwater Recharge– New Recharge Basins Using Existing Decrees

• Lupton Bottoms Ditch• Farmers Independent Ditch• Western Mutual Ditch• Rural Ditch• Greeley Irrigation Company• Jackson Lake Inlet/Orchard Wells• Platte Valley Irrigation Company• Other smaller Ditch companies

Central Water Needs

• Benefits from Groundwater Recharge Sites– New open water features – waterfowl– Direct replenishment of the groundwater– Minimal evaporative loss– Aquifer storage capacity great in many areas

Central Water Needs

• Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation – General Info– 20,600 Acre Feet of Reallocated Storage – 12’ Rise– On Stream Reservoir (already constructed)– Upstream & Downstream Users

• Upstream = Municipal (Denver Basin)• Downstream = Agricultural (Western Ditch & Central)

– Draft EIS released in June 2012 (US COE)– Cost $23.2M – Recent Estimate

• $3M – US Army COE – Storage Space• $16-20M – Environmental & Recreational Mitigation

Central Water Needs

• Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation – Benefits– Location, Location, Location– 1984 Water Right– Fills 7 of 10 years– Space Not Limited to 1984 Water– Best Alternative vs. New Storage – 2012-2013 Water

Right– Water in 3 to 5 years– Central’s Portion of Storage = 13.8%

Central Financials

Central Financials

Central Financials

Current Problems/Challenges

Why are farmers/ranchers vulnerable?

• Ag Transfers of Water to M&I• Reuse by Municipalities• Reliable Water Source to Stay in

Business

South Platte Water Supply Study

Proposed Solutions & Benefits

Central Proposed Solutions

• Chatfield Reservoir– ($23M)

• Purchase of Senior Water Rights– Same locations as Gravel Pits ($10M)

• New Gravel Pit Storage– 2,000 AF Denver/Brighton Area ($8-12M)– 6,000 AF Tribs and/or Platteville/Kersey Area

($18-20M)

Central Proposed Solutions...

• New Groundwater Recharge ($3-5M)– Under Decreed Locations– New Locations & Decrees (Beebe Draw-

Hudson

• Rehabilitation of Reservoirs ($3-5M)– Hillsborough Reservoir (Johnstown)– Boot Lake (Hudson)– Others

Storage & Water Purchases

Economic benefits...

• Weld County Agriculture – 8th in the USA• One Ag Dollar turns into Seven• Assist Central Water District Area

schools, business, towns & cities.

Estimated Cost & Tax Impact

Property Tax Information

• $60M Bond• $100,000 Value = $1.26/mo or $15.48/yr• 25 Year Term

Next Steps

Next Steps

• August 21st – Board – Deadline• Questions– $60M Bond– GMS “De-Bruce” Question

Next Steps

• With the Voter’s Approval in November:– Identify– Evaluate–Negotiate– Purchase– Construct

In summary...

• For $1.29 per month per $100,000 of a home’s market value Central can provide a substantial role in preserving irrigated agriculture and assisting M&I needs in the South Platte River Valley

• We think this is a modest tax impact given the long-term benefits.

• We value your input on what we should do next.

Q&A