1. Interdisciplinary Water Resources Seminar GS 592 Development of New Water Resources Wayne Vanderschuere

2. Colorado Springs Utilities  Four service utility providing safe, reliable, competitively-priced electric, natural gas, water and wastewater services to 500,000 people in Colorado Springs and surrounding communities  Fast growing community with economy based on high tech, military, education, services, and tourism  2008 Budget: $955 Million  Some of the lowest utility rates, nationally, as compared to peers  Multiple J.D. Power awards for customer satisfaction and systems reliability  About 1,800 employees

3. Outline Water System Overview Water Resource Plan The Southern Delivery System Challenges

4. Water System Map LOCAL Collection System BLUE RIVER Collection System HOMESTAKE Collection System TWIN LAKES Collection System FRY-ARK Collection System CONTINENTAL DIVIDE Colorado Springs Pueblo Salida Denver Fountain Creek HOMESTAKE PIPELINE Arkansas River BLUE RIVER PIPELINE FVA PIPELINE COLORADO CANAL Collection System Rocky Ford Fort Collins

5. Water System  Serves 412,800 people with about  81,000 acre-feet/year or 26.3 Billion Gallons/year  Growing @ 2.2%/year  Infrastructure reaches over 3 rivers basins and 9 counties.  25 Storage Reservoirs  28 Storage Tanks  1,780 miles of mains  7 Treatment Facilities  Influenced by activities in Colorado, West, & nationally

6. Colorado Springs’ water supply  On average 70% of water is delivered from Colorado River Basin  Homestake  Twin Lakes  Blue River  Frying Pan-Arkansas Project  Via 3 delivery pipelines  Otero  Blue River  Fountain Valley Authority  Water from Colorado River tributaries  Reused to extinction via: exchanges for agricultural uses in our non-potable system

7. How The System Works Distribution System Customers Distribution Storage Transmission Pipeline Raw Water Pump Station Terminal Storage Water Treatment Plant Waste Water Collection System Gravity Interceptor Force Main Lift Station Waste Water Treatment Plant Arkansas River Basin Systems Discharge to Stream System Sludge Line Land Application Sludge Disposal Regulatory Storage Mountain Collection System Exchange Non-pot Pacific Storms & snow

8. Water Resource Plan  Recommendations from extensive public process, engineering, and economic modeling  Multiple solutions to meet Colorado Springs’ water needs through 2046  All recommendations currently being pursued  New major delivery system needed for 55% of future water supply 8

9. Water Resource Plan  Conservation  Low per person usage as compared to peers  Aggressive block pricing  Education and incentive programs

10.  Nonpotable water development  13% of water delivered  Averaging about 10.2 million gallons/day  System improvements 23.2 MGD  Otero Expansion Project done in 2003 for +13 MGD, 24% increase for this pipeline  Pinello Wells Rehabilitation for 1.8 MGD - 2003  Woodmen Upgrades for 0.8 MGD - 2004  McCleary Wells for 0.6 MGD - 2005  Northgate and Mary Kyer Wells for 1.9 MGD - 2007  Pikeview to Mesa & Highline to Northfield for 4.4 MGD - 2008  Bear Creek Intake for 0.7 MGD - 2008 Water Resource Plan

11. need date

12. Outline

13. Proposed Southern Delivery System Option 2008 Draft EIS 2009 ROD and Construction starts 2012 Pumps & pipes 2012 Water treatment – Phase I 2014-2017 Jimmy Camp Reservoir 2020-2030 Williams Creek Res.

14. Project Cost (2006 Dollars )  Phase One Capital Cost: $593 Million  Pipeline, pump stations, 50 million gallons a day water treatment plant, and treated water pipelines  Future Phases Capital Cost:$440 Million  Reservoirs and water treatment plant expansions

15. NEPA Process The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet this requirement, federal agencies prepare a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews and comments on EISs prepared by other federal agencies, maintains a national filing system for all EISs, and assures that its own actions comply with NEPA. Major Milestones and Schedule  Resource Studies, 2006  Alternatives Released, 2007  Draft EIS for public comment, 1 st Quarter 2008  Record of Decision, 1 st Quarter 2009

16. Planned Environmental Impact Studies

17. Water System Map Proposed Alternative No Action & #7 Alternatives

18. County 1041 Process  In 1974 the Colorado legislature adopted the Land Use Act in response to the “rapid growth and development of the state and the resulting demands on its land resources.  It was a first designed to Protect land resources by some control over “projects of statewide interest” Allocation resources among competing uses Promulgate guidelines Not prohibit

19. SDS Summary  SDS is a cooperative regional project Lowest cost alternative Environmentally responsible  The Southern Delivery System will NOT: take another community’s water impact Pueblo’s Historic Arkansas Riverwalk “dry up” the Arkansas River through Pueblo “dry up” lower Arkansas Valley

20. Summary Water planning risks are significant Supply side Demand side Infrastructure A Comprehensive water supply plan needs Diversity Flexibility Project risks are significant Permitting: Federal and local Political opposition Environmental opposition Financial and rate impacts Water projects are EXPENSIVE!

21. Outline

22. Challenges

23. Challenges Competing Uses Watershed & Forest Management

24. Challenges: the biggest People!!!!  Engineering  Scientific  Business & Financial  Legal  Relationships & communications  Leaders!

25. Questions & Discussion Wayne Vanderschuere 719.668.3811 www.csu.org www.sdseis.com

26.  Hidden slides past here print separately and hold in reserve.

27. Regional Cooperation  Strategic Benefits for SDS & Future Water Supply Operations  Water Leasing  Future Water Projects  Historic Partnerships  Pueblo Board of Water Works  City of Aurora  Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District  Upper Arkansas Voluntary Flow Program (Recreational interests)  March 2004, June 2004 IGAs  Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District  Colorado River Water Conservation District  Stormwater Management  Colorado River planning and operations  Colorado River Supply Availability Study  Virtual Shoshone operations  Programmatic Biological Opinion compliance and activities  Colorado Water for 21 st Century (HB-1177)  IBCC, Roundtables, and Working Group contributions  Colorado Water Conservation Board

28. Return Flows It is estimated that by 2046 the non-native water in FC will increase to ~1/3 of creek flow (over 1990-2006 was 17%).

30. Gallons per Capita Day Comparison Single FamilySystem-Wide Potable 200020052006200020052006 Colorado Springs 1279996217175174 Denver 165125137220168182 Aurora 132120127192150152

31. Sediment Loading  Sediment loads increase with increased flow rates  Significantly less sediment carried at base flows  15 tons/day of suspended sediment is carried for transmountain return flow rates (~35 cfs, 2006 reusable return flow)  400 tons/day of suspended sediment is carried for average yearly flow rates (~165 cfs)  200,000 tons/day of suspended sediment is carried during a channel forming flow rate (1.4 year rainfall event, ~2900 cfs) 31

32. Water Sources Normal Hydrology – Current Levels Source Native East Slope Pikes Peak Arkansas River Transmountain Reuse By Exchange Groundwater Percent of Supply 17% 12% 44% 26% 1%