HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.36 Water Supply Adequacy Report
WATER ADEQUACY REPORT FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
NUTRIENT FARM
September 2020
Prepared by
118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.945.1004
970.945.5948 fax
Nutrient Farm September 2020
WATER ADEQUACY REPORT FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
NUTRIENT FARM
PREPARED BY
BAILEY LEPPEK, P.E.
REVIEWED BY
BRENDON LANGENHUIZEN, P.E.
SGM Project # 2018-271.002
I:\2018\2018-271-RIVERBENDRCH\002- PUDAMENDMENT\E-REPORTS\SGM\SUPPLYADEQUACY
Nutrient Farm September 2020
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Project Location, Description, and Background ............................................................... 1
2.1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Background and History of Riverbend Development .................................................... 1
2.3 Water Rights Background and History ......................................................................... 2
2.4 Planned Land Use Areas ............................................................................................. 3
Water supply from connection to Riverbend HOA System .................................... 3
Water supply from Vulcan Ditch ............................................................................ 3
Water supply from New Exempt Well .................................................................... 3
Estimated Water Demands .............................................................................................. 7
3.1 Potable Indoor Demands ............................................................................................. 8
3.2 Outdoor Demands.......................................................................................................12
Unit Consumptive Use .........................................................................................12
Outdoor Use Efficiency ........................................................................................13
Irrigated Area, Pond Area, and Number of Livestock ...........................................15
3.3 Fire Flow .....................................................................................................................16
3.4 Water Conservation Measures ....................................................................................17
Water Quantity ...............................................................................................................17
4.1 Legal Supply ...............................................................................................................17
Vulcan Ditch Legal Supply ...................................................................................17
Riverbend System Legal Supply ..........................................................................19
4.2 Physical Water Supply ................................................................................................21
Vulcan Ditch Physical Water Supply ....................................................................21
Riverbend System Physical Supply ......................................................................26
Water Quality..................................................................................................................26
5.1 Water Supply Quality ..................................................................................................27
Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................28
6.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................28
References .....................................................................................................................31
Nutrient Farm September 2020
Table of Tables
Table 2-1: Overview of Planned Uses for Nutrient Farm Areas 1 - 8 .......................................... 4
Table 3-1: Nutrient Farm Buildout Demand Summary ................................................................ 7
Table 3-2: Potable Indoor Demands Served by New Exempt Well (Area 5) ............................... 9
Table 3-3: Potable Indoor Demands Served by Riverbend System (Areas 1, 3, 4) ..................... 9
Table 3-4: Potable Indoor Demands Served by Treated Vulcan Ditch Water (Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, &
8) ..............................................................................................................................................10
Table 3-5: Outdoor Demands Served by Riverbend System (Areas 1, 3, 4) ..............................12
Table 3-6: Non-Potable (Outdoor) Demands Served by Vulcan Ditch (Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, & 8) .....12
Table 4-1: Vulcan Ditch Water Rights Summary .......................................................................18
Table of Figures
Figure 2-1: Nutrient Farm Water Rights Location Map ............................................................... 5
Figure 2-2: Nutrient Farm Planned Land Use Areas Map ........................................................... 6
Figure 4-1: Canyon Creek Physical and Legal Supply Map .......................................................20
Figure 4-2: Canyon Creek Stream Flow Analysis Above Vulcan Ditch Headgate ......................23
Figure 4-3: Colorado River Streamflow Analysis .......................................................................25
Nutrient Farm September 2020
1
Introduction
SGM was engaged by Nutrient Holdings, LLC to complete a water supply adequacy
report for the proposed development plans for the Nutrient Farm (Farm) property along
the south bank of the Colorado River in Garfield County between the towns of New
Castle and Glenwood Springs. The Farm is located approximately 2 miles east of New
Castle, Colorado along Colorado River Road (County Road 335). The Farm is bordered
on the north by the Colorado River and on the south by the steep hillsides of Coal Ridge,
part of the Grand Hogback. The Riverbend Homeowners’ Association (HOA) is located
between the Farm and the Colorado River.
The Farm is mostly undeveloped except for one ranch house and historical irrigation
ditches. The proposed development includes limited residential development, an existing
ranch house, a working farm with irrigated crops and livestock, several farm-related
tourism businesses (such as a farm store, adventure farm, and a u-pick orchard),
commercial and professional buildings, several other tourist attractions (such as an off-
road adventure park, campground, water pond park, music and performing arts venues,
and a retreat), and open spaces.
This water supply adequacy assessment presents a summary of SGM’s investigation of
the water supply along with SGM’s estimated water demands for the Farm.
Project Location, Description, and Background
2.1 Project Location
The entire Farm property covers approximately 1,140 acres (1.8 square miles). Of the
total area, approximately 640 acres (1 square mile) is hilly terrain along Coal Ridge with
sparse sage and scrubland cover, which is currently planned as open space. The Vulcan
Ditch cuts through the property, with historically irrigated hay fields sloping gently from
the ditch toward the Colorado River. Figure 2-1 is an overview of the Farm location and
associated water rights.
2.2 Background and History of Riverbend Development
The first Sketch Plan for the Riverbend planned unit development (PUD) was reviewed
and approved by the Board of Garfield County Commissioners on June 26, 1973. This
first plan was for a 617 residential dwelling unit community, including an outdoor
education center, riding stables, open space, pasture, and a demonstration cattle ranch.
A Preliminary Plat for that first plan was reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission on January 14, 1974. After this approval, the County adopted new zoning
regulations, which mandated that later changes to the plan included a formal PUD zone
change.
The second iteration of the PUD was documented in the Preliminary Map of the
Riverbend Planned Unit Development dated August 1976. The August 1976 Map
showed the 1,180.83-acre development would include 198 residential units (118 single
family and 80 multi-family units), a school site, a commercial site, community
center/common area, park/playground, stable, a sewage treatment area, and a 376-acre
agricultural area, which was intended to operate as a working ranch and had sufficient
water rights for planned irrigation.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
2
The 1,180.83-acre property was divided into 11 development blocks, including the
agricultural/open space area. At the time, the developer envisioned the PUD as homes
for local working families and anticipated build-out of the PUD within 10 years. Only a
few of the residential areas identified in the August 1976 Map have since been
subdivided and developed with homes. Of the 1,180.83 acres, 1,140 acres not yet
developed have been transferred and are now the Farm property.
2.3 Water Rights Background and History
Vulcan Ditch and Riverbend Wells
The property sale included significant ownership in the Vulcan Ditch as well as Coal
Ridge Pump & Pipeline and associated Coal Ridge Reservoir. The Vulcan Ditch was
decreed in 1908 for diversion from Canyon Creek, a tributary on the north (opposite)
side of the Colorado River from the Farm. The Vulcan Ditch historically passed through
an inverted siphon across the Colorado River, emerging high on the hillside on the south
side of the River on the Farm property. From there the Vulcan Ditch cuts through the
Farm property, terminating toward the western property boundary. The Vulcan Ditch was
historically used to irrigate the hay fields on the Farm property. The Farm plans to make
necessary repairs to the Vulcan Ditch and to replace the siphon across the Colorado
River with an overpass to carry the ditch over the River to the Farm.
In the 1970s, the Farm property was owned by the Riverbend Development Corporation.
At the time, 600 acres were slated to become a residential development with
approximately 160 residential units and 120 acres of irrigated hay meadows. Riverbend
Development Corporation obtained a Water Court decree, Case No. W2127, for a
change of water rights from the Vulcan Ditch to supply the planned uses for the
development. Case No. W2127 quantified the historical consumptive use of the Vulcan
Ditch water rights (first and second priorities) to be 440 acre-feet (AF) per year in dry
years. This quantification has been relied upon in subsequent Water Court cases.
Potable water supply for the PUD was to be supplied by five wells called Riverbend Well
Nos. 1 through 5 (Riverbend Wells). The Riverbend Wells were awarded their own
water right priority in W2125, for 0.67 cfs from each well with a cumulative volumetric
limit of 340 AF/year from all five wells. The Riverbend Wells were also decreed in Case
No. 2127 as alternate points of diversion for the changed 440 AF of Vulcan Ditch HCU
credits. The maximum allowable diversion from each of the Riverbend Wells as alternate
points is 0.67 cfs of Vulcan Ditch first and second priorities. Wastewater for the
development was planned to be treated in a central treatment plant and then stored
onsite for irrigation reuse.
The development plans in W2127 were never fully realized. The Riverbend Wells
decreed in W2125 are now understood to be owned by the Riverbend Water Company
and supply the Riverbend HOA located between the Farm and the Colorado River. The
Riverbend HOA and Riverbend Wells are shown on Figure 2-1.
Of the Vulcan Ditch 440 AF of historical consumptive use quantified in W2127, 393 AF is
now owned by the Farm and available for use in the Farm’s water supply. Proposed
Farm water use is consistent with the terms and conditions in the W2127 decree. In an
effort to remain consistent with the W2127 decreed augmentation plan, SGM referenced
many of the same demand and depletion factors when applicable.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
3
Coal Ridge Pump & Pipeline and Coal Ridge Reservoir
The Coal Ridge Pump and Pipeline was decreed as an alternate point of diversion for
the Vulcan Ditch first and second priorities in Case No. 84CW349. In addition, the Coal
Ridge Pump and Pipeline has its own junior (1983 priority date) water right for 2.0 cfs,
conditional, for municipal, commercial, industrial, domestic, irrigation, and recreation
purposes, decreed in Case No. 83CW367. Coal Ridge Reservoir is a 2,000 AF
conditional storage right that was decreed in 83CW368 for municipal, commercial,
industrial, domestic, irrigation, and recreation purposes. Coal Ridge Reservoir was to be
filled with the Coal Ridge Pump and Pipeline and/or the Vulcan Ditch. The two Coal
Ridge water rights were owned by the Storm King Mines Inc. and were also transferred
with the Farm property.
This report discusses the potential for diversions of the Farm’s Vulcan Ditch ownership
at the Coal Ridge Pump and Pipeline alternate point of diversion per Case No.
84CW349. The Farm may use the junior water rights in the Coal Ridge Pump and
Pipeline and Coal Ridge Reservoir for supplemental or additional water supply.
However, for the purposes of this Water Supply Adequacy Report these junior water
rights are not relied upon to prove supply.
2.4 Planned Land Use Areas
Proposed uses for Nutrient Farm are divided into eight land use areas. Figure 2-2 is a
map of the Farm showing the eight land use areas. Table 2-1 describes each land use
area and its proposed uses for residential or commercial development. As planned, each
residential lot will allow one residential dwelling plus one accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Water supply from connection to Riverbend HOA System
The proposed residential developments in Areas 1, 3, and 4 will connect to the existing
Riverbend Water Company potable water system (Riverbend System), which currently
serves the Riverbend HOA. Riverbend System will provide all indoor and outdoor water
use to these Areas through the potable water system.
Water supply from Vulcan Ditch
Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will be entirely served by the Vulcan Ditch for indoor and outdoor
water needs, with the exception of Area 5 receiving potable indoor supply from a new
well to be drilled on the Farm. Water will be conveyed to the Farm through the Vulcan
Ditch (which will eventually be piped) to the Supply Pond on the Farm. All outdoor
(irrigation, livestock watering, and pond filling) uses in these areas will be served with
raw water either directly from the Vulcan Ditch or untreated water from the Supply Pond.
Potable water for Area 2 and Areas 6 through 8 will be provided from the Supply Pond
through individual water treatment systems to fit the specific water quality needs.
Water supply from New Exempt Well
In addition to the Working Farm East, Area 5 is also slated to have a farmhouse. All
outdoor water demands for the farmhouse will be served by the Vulcan Ditch. A new well
will be drilled and permitted to supply potable water (indoor uses only) to the farmhouse.
This well will mostly likely qualify as an exempt well and would not need a new water
right or augmentation. However, to be conservative for the purposes of planning water
Nutrient Farm September 2020
4
supply adequacy, this plan assumes that a portion of the Farm’s Vulcan Ditch
consumptive use credits will be assigned to meet the depletions of this well.
Table 2-1: Overview of Planned Uses for Nutrient Farm Areas 1 - 8
Area Proposed Uses
Area 1 Residential: 5 half-acre lots with single-family home + ADU
Area 2 Residential: Farmhouse (1 single-family home + ADU)
Area 3 Residential: 10 half-acre lots with single-family home + ADU
Area 4 Residential: 2 half-acre lots with single-family home + ADU
Area 5 Working Farm East: hay irrigation, cattle grazing, livestock pond.
Working Farm East Farmhouse (1 single-family home + ADU)
Area 6
• Adventure farm (tourist attraction with amenities such as pavilion, picnic area, petting zoo)
• Farm store
• Working Farm West: irrigation of vegetables, fruit, and orchard (includes a U-pick orchard)
• Greenhouse (indoor year-round irrigation of vegetables)
• Utilities building (planned to house renewable energy operations and possibly water
treatment operations)
• Farm processing building (produce washing and food processing for agricultural products)
• Restaurant
• Supply pond (attenuation for supply from Vulcan Ditch)
• Pond for irrigation and/or cooling
• Ponds for aesthetic and/or waterfowl purposes
Area 7 Commercial, retail, and professional buildings
Area 8
• Off-road adventure park
• Water park (recreational ponds for outdoor water sports, such as stand-up paddle boarding)
• Campground (tent sites, cabins, and RV spaces)
• Tree nursery
• Music festival (outdoor lawn-based festival space, will occupy same area as tree nursery
after trees are harvested)
• Performing arts center (indoor and outdoor performing space)
• Retreat center (small lodge with space for workshops and group activities)
Nutrient Farm September 2020
5
Figure 2-1: Nutrient Farm Water Rights Location Map
Nutrient Farm September 2020
6
Figure 2-2: Nutrient Farm Planned Land Use Areas Map
Nutrient Farm September 2020
7
Estimated Water Demands
To assess demands and peaking factors, SGM referred to the water adequacy
requirements for Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-203,
Paragraph M: Water Supply and Distribution Plan.
Full buildout demands and consumptive use for Nutrient Farm are summarized by
source (Riverbend Water Company or treated Vulcan Ditch water) in Table 3-1. Potable
and non-potable demand calculations and assumptions are documented in the following
sections for each Farm area by each respective planned land use.
Table 3-1: Nutrient Farm Buildout Demand Summary
Served by
Riverbend
(Areas 1, 3, 4)
Served by
Vulcan Ditch
(Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Served by
New Exempt
Well (Area 5)
Total for Farm
(Areas 2, 5,
6, 7, 8)
Total Annual Consumptive Use 2.31 AF/year 391.7 AF/year 0.07 AF/year 391.8 AF/year
Indoor
Annual Consumptive Use 0.36 AF/year 2.7 AF/year 0.07 AF/year 2.8 AF/year
Annual Demand 12.00 AF/year 27.5 AF/year 0.7 AF/year 28 AF/year
Average Day Demand 0.033 AF/day 0.075 AF/day 0.002 AF/day 0.08 AF/day
Max Day Demand 1 0.099 AF/day 0.226 AF/day 0.006 AF/day 0.23 AF/day
0.050 cfs 0.114 cfs 0.003 cfs 0.12 cfs
Peak Hour Demand 2 0.099 cfs 0.23 cfs 0.01 cfs 0.24 cfs
Outdoor
Annual Consumptive Use 1.95 AF/year 389.0 AF/year - 389 AF/year
Annual Demand 2.60 AF/year 595.4 AF/year - 595 AF/year
Average Day Demand 0.012 AF/day 2.78 AF/day - 2.78 AF/day
Peak Month (July)
Average Day Demand 0.02 AF/day 5.75 AF/day - 5.75 AF/day
Non-
Irrigation
Season
(Nov-Mar)
Average Day Demand
0.033 AF/day 0.087 AF/day 0.002 AF/day 0.09 AF/day
0.017 cfs 0.044 cfs 0.001 cfs 0.05 cfs
Irrigation
Season
(April -
October)
Average Day Demand 0.045 AF/day 2.86 AF/day 0.002 AF/day 2.9 AF/day
0.023 cfs 1.44 cfs 0.001 AF/day 1.4 cfs
Max Day Demand 1 0.135 AF/day 8.570 AF/day 0.006 AF/day 8.6 AF/day
0.068 cfs 4.32 cfs 0.003 cfs 4.32 cfs
Peak Hour Demand 2 0.136 cfs 8.64 cfs 0.01 cfs 8.7 cfs
Notes: AF – acre-feet; cfs – cubic feet per second
Peaking factors are from Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-203:
1. Maximum daily demand is calculated as 3.0 times the average day demand.
2. Peak hour demand is calculated as 6.0 times the average day demand.
Annual potable demands were distributed across the entire year (365 days) to get indoor
average day demand. Year-round outdoor demands (greenhouse and livestock
watering) were also distributed across the entire year (365 days). For other outdoor
demands, the annual demand was distributed across the irrigation season (April through
October, 214 days) to get the outdoor average day demand. Average day demand for
the non-irrigation season, November through March, is equal to the average day
Nutrient Farm September 2020
8
demand for potable use, livestock watering, and greenhouse irrigation. Average day
demand for the irrigation season is equal to the potable average day demand plus the
non-potable average day demand. Peaking factors were then applied to the average day
demand to calculate maximum day demand and peak hour demand.
The Farm’s peak hour demand from the Vulcan Ditch is 8.7 cfs (including non-potable
irrigation), which is within the legal capacity of 8.93 cfs based on the Farm’s Vulcan
Ditch ownership. The annual consumptive use of Vulcan Ditch water is 391.8 AF (2.8 AF
of potable and 389.0 AF of non-potable), within the Farm’s ownership of 393 AF.
3.1 Potable Indoor Demands
For Areas 1, 3, and 4, potable indoor demands will be provided from the Riverbend
System, and wastewater will be treated by a central wastewater collection and treatment
facility. These demands are therefore assumed to have a consumptive use of 3%,
consistent with the decreed factors in Case No. W2127 which contemplated wastewater
to be treated with a centralized plant.
For Areas 2 and 5-8, potable indoor demands will be provided from separate potable
systems maintained by the Farm, and wastewater will be treated by onsite wastewater
treatment systems, likely septic system(s) with leach field(s), which typically have a
higher consumptive use than central plants. Indoor demands for Areas 2 and 5 – 8 use
an estimated 10% consumptive use. This indoor consumptive use factor differs from the
factor of 3% consumptive use used in Case No. W2127 because of the difference in
planned wastewater collection and disposal methods.
Areas 1 – 5: Residential Indoor Demands
To calculate potable indoor demands for residential uses, SGM used the definition of an
equivalent residential unit (EQR) as a single-family dwelling with 3.5 people using 100
gallons per day (gpd) per person, equal to 350 gpd per EQR. This indoor demand is
consistent with the decreed factors in Case No. W2127, which specifies 350 gpd/EQR
as indoor demands, with demands for lawn and landscaping calculated separately.
Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-203.M, and Town of New
Castle Municipal Code, Section 13.24.030 both also reference demand of 350 gpd/EQR,
but these demands include 2,500 square feet of lawn and landscaping. To be consistent
with Case No. W2127, this Report used an indoor demand of 350 gpd/EQR for
residences, and separately calculated outdoor demands for irrigated lawn and
landscaping. Each accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered 0.8 EQR, consistent with
New Castle Municipal Code 13.20.060, with an additional indoor demand of 280 gpd.
Areas 6 – 8: Non-Residential Indoor Demands
SGM estimated potable indoor water demands for non-residential uses by relying on
Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) Regulation No. 43, Table 6-2: Estimated Daily
Wastewater Flow For Design Purposes, supplemented with planned number of
employees or average public occupancy as provided by the Nutrient Farm planning
team. Table 6-2 does not have flows tabulated for each exact use contemplated by the
Farm, so SGM used the closest available use shown in the table.
Starting with these design standards, SGM converted from unit daily wastewater flow to
unit daily water demands using 10% consumptive use for indoor purposes. Daily
Nutrient Farm September 2020
9
demand was then converted to annual demand based on information from Nutrient Farm
about planned seasonality and/or frequency of use.
Total Potable Demands
Potable demand calculations and assumptions are detailed for each business or land
use type in Table 3-2, Table 3-3, and Table 3-4. Each table shows the annual total
demand (or required diversions) and the consumptive use (CU) calculated for each use
type.
Onsite potable water storage will be required to meet Garfield County water system
requirements. Potable water storage will allow the Farm to handle peak potable water
demands and daily and seasonal variations. Fire flow will be provided from non-potable
storage and via dry hydrants, rather than from potable storage. Water storage
requirements and preliminary siting of storage facilities are not addressed in this report.
Table 3-2: Potable Indoor Demands Served by New Exempt Well (Area 5)
Business or
Land Use
Type
Indoor Potable Demand Calculations Annual (AF/year) Note Indoor Potable Unit
Demand (gpd/unit) x # Units
(buildout/max) x Days/
year (Seasonality) Demand CU
Area 5
(Residential) 630 gpd/lot x 1 lot x 365 (Year Round) 0.71 0.071 1
Sum of Indoor Potable Demands Served by New Exempt Well: 0.71 0.071
Notes: gpd – gallons per day; AF – acre-feet; SF – square foot; CU – consumptive use (depletions)
Calculations assume indoor water use is 10% consumptive (90% returns as wastewater).
1. Each lot as planned has one single-family home (1 EQR, 350 gpd) and one ADU (0.8 EQR, 280 gpd) for an
indoor demand of 630 gpd per lot and will be occupied year-round.
Table 3-3: Potable Indoor Demands Served by Riverbend System (Areas 1, 3, 4)
Business or
Land Use
Type
Indoor Potable Demand Calculations Annual (AF/year) Note Indoor Potable
Unit Demand
(gpd/unit)
x
# Units
(buildout/
max)
x Days/
year (Seasonality) Demand CU
Area 1, 3, 4
Area 1
(Residential) 630 gpd/lot x 5 lots x 365 (Year Round) 3.53 0.106 1
Area 3
(Residential) 630 gpd/lot x 10 lots x 365 (Year Round) 7.06 0.212 1
Area 4
(Residential) 630 gpd/lot x 2 lots x 365 (Year Round) 1.41 0.042 1
Sum of Indoor Potable Demands Served by Riverbend System (Areas 1, 3, 4): 12.00 0.360
Notes: gpd – gallons per day; AF – acre-feet; SF – square foot; CU – consumptive use (depletions)
Calculations assume indoor water use for areas served by the Riverbend System is 3% consumptive (97% returns
as wastewater), consistent with the decreed factors in Case No. W2127.
1. Each lot as planned has one single-family home (1 EQR, 350 gpd) and one ADU (0.8 EQR, 280 gpd) for an
indoor demand of 630 gpd per lot and will be occupied year-round.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
10
Table 3-4: Potable Indoor Demands Served by Treated Vulcan Ditch Water (Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, & 8)
Business or
Land Use Type
Indoor Potable Demand Calculations Annual (AF/year) Note Indoor Potable Unit
Demand (gpd/unit) x # Units
(buildout/max) x Days/
year (Seasonality) Demand CU
Area 2
Area 2
(Farmhouse) 630 gpd/lot x 1 lot x 365 (Year Round) 0.71 0.071 1
Sum of Area 2: 0.71 0.071
Area 5 No Vulcan Ditch potable indoor demands, see Table 3-3 Sum of Area 5: 0.00 0.00
Area 6 2
Working Farm,
U-Pick Orchard
5.6 gpd/visitor x 25 visitors x 214 (Summer, 7 mo.) 0.09 0.009 a
22 gpd/employee x 4 Employees X 214 (Summer, 7 mo.) 0.06 0.006 b
Farm Store 0.11 gpd/SF x 4,000 SF x 365 (Year Round) 0.49 0.049 c
Adventure
Farm 5.6 gpd/visitor x 118 visitors x 214 (Summer, 7 mo.) 0.43 0.043 a
Restaurant 56 gpd/seat x 180 seats x 365 (Year Round) 11.29 1.129 e
Utilities Bldg.,
Greenhouse,
Processing
Building
22 gpd/employee x 27 employees x 313
(Year round,
6 days/week)
0.57 0.057 b
5,000 gpd processing water x 313 4.80 0.480 f
Sum of Area 6: 17.74 1.77
Area 7 2
Commercial,
professional,
retail buildings
5.6 gpd/visitor x 50 visitors x 365 (Year Round) 0.31 0.031 a
17 gpd/employee x 50 employees x 365 (Year Round) 0.95 0.095 d
Sum of Area 7: 1.27 0.13
Notes: gpd – gallons per day; AF – acre-feet; SF – square foot; CU – consumptive use (depletions); mo. – month
Calculations assume indoor water use is 10% consumptive (90% returns as wastewater).
1. Each lot as planned has one single-family home (1 EQR, 350 gpd) and one ADU (0.8 EQR, 280 gpd) for a demand of 630
gpd per lot and will be occupied year-round.
2. Demands based on WQCD Regulation No. 43, Table 6-2: Estimated Daily Wastewater Flow For Design Purposes:
a. Demand of 5.6 gpd/visitor (5 gpd wastewater) is typical for facilities with short-term or transient visitors. Examples:
fairgrounds, ball parks, racetracks, stadiums, theaters, airports, etc.
b. Demand of 22 gpd/employee/8hr shift (20 gpd wastewater) is typical of factories and plants exclusive of industrial
wastewater, no showers provided.
c. Demand of 0.11 gpd/SF of retail space (0.1 gpd wastewater) is typical of stores and shopping centers.
d. Demand of 17 gpd/employee (15 gpd wastewater) is typical for offices or businesses (no kitchens or showers).
e. Demand of 56 gpd/seat (50 gpd wastewater) is typical for restaurants.
f. Processing building water demands (produce washing, food processing, etc.) are estimated based on 50% of the
daily potable water demand at the restaurant. This assumes that in addition to washing and processing water in the
restaurant kitchen for prepared meals, a similar amount of water is used for processing and washing for farm goods
for sale.
Table and notes continued on following page.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
11
Table 3-4 (cont.): Potable Demands Served by Treated Vulcan Ditch Water (Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, & 8)
Business or
Land Use
Type
Indoor Potable Demand Calculations Annual (AF/year) Note Indoor Potable Unit
Demand (gpd/unit) x # Units
(buildout/max) x Days/
year (Seasonality) Demand CU
Area 8 2
Off-road Park 5.6 gpd/visitor x 25 visitors x 365 (Year Round) 0.16 0.016 a
Concessions 28 gpd/seat x 13 seats x 365 (Year Round) 0.41 0.041 g
Water Park 5.6 gpd/visitor x 50 visitors x 153 (Summer, 5 mo.) 0.13 0.013 a
Campground
& Cabins
56 gpd/camp site x 36 camp sites x 214 (Summer, 7 mo.) 1.32 0.132 h
111 gpd/cabin x 13 cabins x 365 (Year Round) 1.62 0.162 i
111 gpd/RV spot x 18 RV spots x 365 (Year Round) 2.24 0.224 i
444 gpd/laundry
machine x 2 laundry
machines x 365 (Year Round) 0.99 0.099 j
Campground
pool 11 gpd/person x 50 person
capacity x 214 (Summer, 7 mo.) 0.36 0.036 k
Music
Festival 5.6 gpd/visitor x 350 visitors x 28 (Summer, 7 mo.
4 events/mo.) 0.17 0.017 l
Performing
Arts Center 5.6 gpd/visitor x 100 visitors x 28 (Summer, 7 mo.
4 events/mo.) 0.05 0.005 a
Retreat 83 gpd/room x 12
rooms
(1 person
per room)
x 96
(Year Round,
two 4-day
retreats/mo.)
0.29 0.029 m
Sum of Area 8: 7.74 0.77
Sum of Indoor Potable Demand Served by Treated Vulcan Ditch Water (Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, & 8): 27.45 2.75
Notes Continued: gpd – gallons per day; AF – acre-feet; SF – square foot; CU – consumptive use (depletions)
Calculations assume indoor water use is 10% consumptive (90% returns as wastewater).
g. Demand of 28 gpd/seat (25 gpd wastewater) is typical for restaurant with paper service only.
h. Demand of 56 gpd/campsite (50 gpd wastewater) is typical for campsites (laundry calculated separately).
i. Demand of 111 gpd/unit (100 gpd wastewater) is typical for travel trailer parks with individual water and
sewage hookup, also used for plumbed cabins (laundry calculated separately).
j. Demand of 444 gpd/commercial washing machine (400 gpd wastewater) is typical for self-service laundry.
k. Demand of 11 gpd/person capacity (10 gpd wastewater) is typical for swimming pools and bathhouses.
l. Music festival plans include portable restrooms. Demand per visitor is for drinking water only.
m. Demand of 83 gpd/room (75 gpd wastewater) is typical for hotels and motels.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
12
3.2 Outdoor Demands
SGM estimated outdoor demands for irrigation, pond evaporation, and stock watering
based on unit demands for each type of use, multiplied by the quantity (acres of
irrigation or pond surface or the number of animals). Outdoor unit demands,
consumptive use, and diversions are summarized by source (Riverbend potable system
or Vulcan Ditch water) in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6.
Calculations and assumptions are described for unit consumptive use in Section 3.2.1,
for efficiency in Section 3.2.2, and for acreage and number of animals are in Section
3.2.3.
Table 3-5: Outdoor Demands Served by Riverbend System (Areas 1, 3, 4)
Type of Unit Demand
(Crop or Use)
Annual
Unit CU
(AF/unit)
Number of Units
(buildout/max)
Total
Consumptive
Use (AF)
Efficiency (%
Consumptive)
Demand
Diversions
(AF/year)
Lawn / Landscaping 2.00 0.98 acres 1.95 75% 2.60
SUM 1.95 2.60
Table 3-6: Non-Potable (Outdoor) Demands Served by Vulcan Ditch (Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, & 8)
Type of Unit Demand
(Crop or Use)
Annual
Unit CU
(AF/unit)
Number of Units
(buildout/max)
Total
Consumptive
Use (AF/year)
Efficiency (%
Consumptive)
Demand
Diversions
(AF/year)
Lawn / Landscaping 2.00 12.67 acres 25.33 75% 33.78
Hay / Native Grass 2.00 43.00 acres 86.00 60% 143.33
Orchard (with ground-
cover) 2.44 46.00 acres 112.24 75% 149.65
Orchard (without
ground-cover) 1.87 2.00 acres 3.74 75% 4.98
Tree Nursery 1.87 2.50 acres 4.67 43% 10.86
Corn & Vegetables 1.48 96.00 acres 142.27 60% 237.12
Vegetables
Greenhouse 6.53 0.25 acres 1.63 65% 2.51
Evaporation 1.00 11.46 acres 11.46 100% 11.46
Livestock Watering 0.01 130.00 livestock 1.60 100% 1.60
Fowl Watering 0.07 1.00 1,000 fowl 0.07 100% 0.07
SUM 389.01 595.37
Unit Consumptive Use
Methodology for determining the annual unit consumptive use for each crop or use type
is summarized in Table 3-6, and is described in this section.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
13
Unit Irrigation Water Requirement for Irrigation
Monthly crop unit irrigation water requirement (IWR) is the portion of total crop
evapotranspiration (on a per acre basis) which is not supplied by effective precipitation.
It is determined for a specific crop and a specific location. IWR represents the
consumptive use (CU) of a crop. Annual values of IWR for each crop type are given in
Table 3-6.
Where possible, SGM used CU factors from Case No. W2127, the original change of
use case for the Vulcan Ditch, for consistency. The W2127 Decree specifies a unit IWR
of 2.0 AF/acre annually for lawn/landscaping and for hay/pasture grass. Because
monthly distribution was not specified in W2127, the annual IWR of lawn and pasture
grass obtained from the W2127 Decree was distributed monthly using the seasonal
distribution from SGM’s modified Blaney-Criddle analysis.
For crops not contemplated in Case No. W2127, SGM calculated monthly crop IWR
using the Modified Blaney-Criddle method using the State's StateCU software. IWR was
calculated over a 30-year study period of 1988 - 2017. Climate station data (temperature
and precipitation) is from the Glenwood Springs No. 2 climate station (the closest climate
station to the Farm with an adequate period of record). Gaps in climate data were filled
with historical averages. An orographic temperature adjustment of 3.6 F / 1,000 feet
was applied from the climate station elevation to the approximate elevation of the Vulcan
Ditch headgate, 5,850 feet. SGM selected elevation-adjusted TR-21 crop coefficients
specific to each crop type (such as corn and vegetables, orchard, etc.). For vegetables
grown in the greenhouse, the total crop evapotranspiration is used to determine
consumptive use, rather than IWR, to account for the fact that no natural precipitation
falls in the greenhouse. Because the greenhouse is productive year-round, consumptive
use of greenhouse-grown vegetables for each month is set equal to the maximum month
(July) evapotranspiration.
Unit Evaporation Demands
The W2127 Decree also specifies a unit evaporation rate of 1.0 AF/acre of pond surface
annually. The annual evaporation for pond surfaces is distributed monthly using the
evaporation distribution pattern for elevations below 6,500 feet from the Colorado State
Engineer’s Office (SEO) General Guidelines for Substitute Water Supply Plans for Sand
and Gravel Pits (version 4/1/2011).
Unit Livestock Demands
Demands for livestock watering are based on 11 gpd per head (annual unit CU of 0.012
AF per head), the typical livestock water demands used by the Division 5 State
Engineer’s Office. The Farm also plans to have a small number of livestock for the
petting zoo, but the exact type of animals is not yet known; for simplicity SGM assumed
the same demands for all mammals. The farm also plans to have fowl, such as chickens
and ducks. Demands for all fowl are estimated at 66 gpd per 1,000 birds (annual unit CU
of 0.07 AF per 1,000 birds), based on resources from PoultryHub on caring for chickens.
Outdoor Use Efficiency
Once unit consumptive use is calculated, it must be converted to demands (diversions).
Outdoor use efficiency is the portion of demands which are consumptively used. The
portion of demands which is not consumptively used returns to the stream either as
surface water runoff or delayed groundwater return flows.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
14
• Pond evaporation and livestock are both considered to be 100% consumptive in
this analysis, as is typically done.
• Hay, corn, and vegetable irrigation are assumed to be 60% efficient, which is a
typical efficiency for flood irrigation. The Farm plans to convert much of the hay
irrigation to more efficient sprinkler irrigation in the future and plans to convert much
of the vegetable irrigation to a more efficient method such as sprinklers, micro-
emitters, or drip irrigation. However, to represent the higher diversions required for
initial less-efficient flood irrigation plans, SGM used 60% efficiency.
• Lawn and landscaping are assumed to have an irrigation efficiency of 75%, which
is typical of sprinkler irrigation. While some landscaping may have more efficient drip
irrigation systems, 75% is used for a conservative approach.
• Orchard trees are estimated at 75% efficiency, which is typical of sprinkler irrigation,
although more efficient micro-emitter and/or drip systems will likely be installed
eventually.
• Greenhouse-grown vegetables and other plants can have varying efficiencies
depending on the irrigation methods. Nutrient Farm is considering hydroponic,
aquaponic, drip, or other highly water efficient methods that can have efficiency as
high as 90-percent. However, if overhead sprinklers are used, as much as 50-
percent of water applied can fall between the containers, depending on container
spacing (1), with 50-percent reaching the container. A typical leaching fraction of 20-
percent represents water applied to container plants which leaches or drains out of
the container (2), with 80-percent used by the plant. A resulting low-end estimate for
efficiency if overhead sprinkler irrigation is used is 40-percent (50-percent of water
applied reaching the container * 80-percent retained by the plant). Greenhouse
irrigation methods have not yet been determined. Therefore, a mid-range estimate of
65-percent efficiency is used for greenhouse demands to represent a mix of
overhead sprinkler irrigation and more efficient drip or hydroponic irrigation practices.
• Nursery trees have significantly lower irrigation efficiency than mature orchards for
several reasons. Part of this difference is due to the roots being contained (either by
a container or by the root-ball size for balled and burlapped trees grown in the
ground) and therefore do not have the same ability to absorb water compared to
trees grown in the ground with established and fully developed root structures.
Recently planted trees require frequent irrigation and consistent soil moisture to
allow for proper root absorption and to prevent disease, pests, and branch dieback(3).
Additional water is also often applied to leaves as pest control. Tree nursery
irrigation efficiency is estimated at 43-percent, using similar concepts described for
greenhouse-grown vegetables: (60-percent of water applied reaches the root-ball or
container) * (80-percent of water retained by the plant) * (90-percent to reflect an
additional 10-percent application for pest control).
1 University of Tennessee Extension, Institute of Agriculture. PB 1836 - Nursery Irrigation: A
Guide for Reducing Risk and Improving Production.
2 University of Tennessee Extension, Institute of Agriculture. Sustainable Nursery Irrigation
Management Series Part II: Strategies to Increase Nursery Crop Irrigation Efficiency.
3 Colorado State Forest Service & Colorado State University, 2020. Watering.
https://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-trees/selecting-planting-and-caring-for-trees/watering/
Nutrient Farm September 2020
15
Irrigated Area, Pond Area, and Number of Livestock
SGM estimated irrigated acreage and number of livestock for each Farm Area at
buildout in coordination with the Nutrient Farm planning team.
Area 2: Farmhouse
• The Farmhouse is planned to have 2,500 square feet of irrigated lawn and
landscaping.
Area 5: Working Farm East
• Demands are estimated for 120 head of livestock.
• The livestock pond on Area 5 has been designed with a surface area of 0.25 acre.
• Irrigated area of pasture grass is estimated at 43 acres. Portions of Area 5 will not be
irrigated pasture grass due to hilly terrain or because of ponds, paddocks, barns, and
road cover.
• Area 5 will also have a farmhouse, for which indoor demands will be supplied by an
exempt well and outdoor demands will be supplied by the Vulcan Ditch. The Area 5
farmhouse is estimated to have 2,500 square feet of irrigated lawn and landscaping,
and no additional irrigated hay or livestock.
Area 6: Working Farm West and Farm Related Attractions
• Pond surface area for Area 6, based on information from the Nutrient Farm planning
team, includes: 5 acres of surface area at buildout for both the Supply Pond and an
irrigation and cooling pond, and 1.5 acres for planned ponds for waterfowl,
aesthetics, and possible collaboration with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for ponds
related to the wildlife mitigation plan.
• The total planned area of lawn and landscaping in Area 6 is 3.23 acres. This includes
3 acres of lawn and landscaping for the adventure farm, which would include picnic
and pavilion areas and landscaping beds. This also includes an estimated 2,500
square feet of lawn and landscaping around each building: the utilities building,
processing building, farm store, and restaurant.
• Greenhouse irrigation is assumed to be non-potable. The planned irrigated area
within the greenhouse is 0.25 acres.
• Demands for outdoor-grown vegetables and corn were grouped together, as the
exact planting types are not yet known. These planting types may include corn (for
corn maze), pumpkins (for u-pick pumpkins), other squash and melons, flower and
herb gardens, and any other vegetables. A total area of 96 acres is planned for corn
and vegetables at buildout.
• The planned area of orchard is estimated at 46 acres, including berries and the area
designated as u-pick orchard (part of the adventure farm attraction). Orchard areas
will also have groundcover.
• Livestock watering demands for the petting zoo are estimated at 10 livestock, as the
exact number and type of animals are not yet known.
• Fowl watering demands are conservatively based 1,000 birds, which would include
any petting zoo fowl and planned uses for ducks and egg-laying hens.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
16
Area 7: Commercial, Retail, and Professional Buildings
• The only planned outdoor demand for Area 7 is lawn and landscaping around the
buildings. Demands are based on an estimated 5,000 square feet (0.11 acres) total
of irrigated lawn and landscaping for Area 7.
Area 8: Campground, Water Park, Off-Road Park, Festival, Performing Arts, Retreat,
Tree Nursery
• Pond surface area for Area 8, based on information from the Nutrient Farm planning
team, includes 4 acres for the water park recreational ponds plus an estimated 0.08
acres for evaporation from the campground swimming pool.
• Lawn and landscaping for the off-road adventure park are assumed to be a small
portion of the overall area. Demands are based on 2 acres of lawn and landscaping
and 2 acres of non-native trees requiring irrigation (uses crop coefficients of orchard
trees). Of the roughly 70 acres of total footprint of the off-road adventure park, most
of the area will be dirt/gravel roadways for motor sports. Other landscaping is
assumed to be non-irrigated native vegetation.
• Demands for the campground assume 900 square feet of lawn and landscaping for
each of 59 sites (including tent sites, RV sites, and cabins), plus 8,100 square feet
each for eight group sites, for a total of 2.71 acres. Remaining campground area is
assumed to be non-irrigated native vegetation.
• The performing arts center is planned to have indoor and outdoor performing space
within its approximately four-acre footprint, so demands are conservatively based on
1 acre of irrigated lawn and landscaping.
• The retreat is planned to have a lodge with space for workshops and group activities.
Because this may include significant outdoor space for events such as yoga retreats,
this area is conservatively estimated to have 1 acre of irrigated lawn and
landscaping.
• The plan for the music festival and tree farm is to start the approximately 5-acre area
as a tree nursery, raising trees to be used for landscaping elsewhere on the property.
As the trees are moved from the nursery to other areas of the Farm, space would be
made for lawn, eventually leaving an outdoor festival venue of lawn surrounded by
trees. Buildout demands were based on 2.5 acres of lawn and 2.5 acres of trees
(nursery trees).
Augmentation Pond
• Because onsite augmentation may be required, evaporation demands conservatively
included approximately 0.6 acres of augmentation pond surface area (which would
allow for a 5 AF pond 8-feet deep).
3.3 Fire Flow
Garfield County requires that developments properly address fire flow needs through
storage or water supplies and infrastructure sizing. Water supply for fire flows at the
Farm will be provided from non-potable storage (rather than potable storage tanks) and
through dry hydrants. The Farm will incorporate the necessary storage and flow
requirements to address the required fire flows during the design process.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
17
3.4 Water Conservation Measures
Historical irrigation on the property has been flood irrigation, which is relatively
inefficient. While initial irrigation on the Farm will likely be largely flood irrigation, the
Farm anticipates converting to more efficient irrigation practices (such as sprinklers,
micro-emitters, and drip irrigation). Efficient irrigation methods will reduce the diversions
required to deliver the needed consumptive use water to crops. The Farm also plans to
pipe major sections of the Vulcan Ditch, reducing losses along the length of piped ditch
due to seepage and evaporation.
During times of water shortage in Canyon Creek or the Colorado River, Farm staff can
prioritize irrigation of key crops while reducing irrigation of lawns and landscaping. Farm
staff can also use deficit irrigation or rotational irrigation as a tool for reducing demands
while keeping the farm operational during a critical water shortage.
Water Quantity
Based on the quantity and seniority of the Vulcan Ditch water rights associated with the
Farm property and the analysis of streamflow availability in Canyon Creek and the
Colorado River, SGM believes that there is sufficient supply for the projected demand of
Nutrient Farm. The physical and legal supply is sufficient to support both for the annual
consumptive use and the peak hourly demands.
4.1 Legal Supply
Legal supply is discussed for the Vulcan Ditch and for the Riverbend system. Based on
a comparison of the Farm’s water rights to anticipated demands and consumptive use,
the Farm’s legal supply is sufficient.
Vulcan Ditch Legal Supply
Nutrient Farm owns the right to 393 AF of consumptive use (CU) in the Vulcan Ditch.
Nutrient Farm’s Vulcan Ditch water can be taken either from Canyon Creek at the
headgate of the Vulcan Ditch or from the Colorado River at the Coal Ridge Pump and
Pipeline, an alternate point of diversion for the Vulcan Ditch decreed in Case No.
84CW349.
The total historical consumptive use of the Vulcan Ditch first and second priorities was
quantified in Case No. W2127 to be 440 AF per year in dry years. Subsequent cases
have relied upon this quantification. As documented in Case No. 84CW349, 395 AF of
the total 440 AF of CU were conveyed to Storm King Mines, Inc. Of the 395 AF of CU, 2
AF now belongs to Chris Lake, a property owner located along the Vulcan Ditch
alignment south of the Riverbend Development. The remaining 393 AF of CU, along with
the Coal Ridge Pump and Pipeline and Coal Ridge Reservoir water rights, were
transferred to APB Holdings, LLC (the owner of Nutrient Farm) via special warranty deed
dated November 8, 2018, included in Appendix A.
The Vulcan Ditch has three water right priorities as outlined in Table 4-1. Nutrient Farm’s
ownership of 393 AF of the total 440 AF of CU entitles it to 8.93 cfs of the total 10 cfs in
the Vulcan Ditch under the first and second priorities, as detailed in Table 4-1 below.
Nutrient Farm does not own any of the third priority (Temple Enlargement).
Nutrient Farm September 2020
18
The Farm’s peak hour demand is calculated at 8.7 cfs, based on the peaking factors
identified in Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-203.M. The
peak hour demand is within the Farm’s legal ownership of 8.93 cfs in the Vulcan Ditch.
The annual consumptive use of Vulcan Ditch water is 391.8 AF (2.8 AF of potable and
389.0 AF of non-potable), which is within the Farm’s ownership of 393 AF of the Vulcan
Ditch HCU credits quantified in W2127.
Table 4-1: Vulcan Ditch Water Rights Summary
Water Right
Priority Name
Adjudication
Date
Appropriation
Date
Administration
Number
Case No.
Originally
Decreed
Amount
Total
Amount
Decreed
(cfs)
Amount
Owned by
Nutrient
Farm * (cfs)
First (Senior) 9/14/1908 4/1/1907 21000.20909 CA1319 6 5.36
Second (Junior) 9/5/1952 10/8/1942 33978.33883 CA4004 4 3.57
Third (Temple
Enlargement) 12/31/1993 9/4/1980 52230.47729 93CW91 0.13 0.00
Sum of three priorities: 10.13 8.93
Notes: Nutrient Farm owns 393 AF of the 440 AF of CU quantified under the Vulcan Ditch first and second
priorities per Case No. W2127; its ownership in the first and second priorities corresponds to the 393/440.
Case No. 84CW349 also explicitly states the right to use these Vulcan Ditch credits
year-round:
"The Court also finds that Applicant's water rights in the Vulcan Ditch …may be used
for year-round municipal use (including commercial, industrial, domestic, irrigation
incident thereto, and sewage treatment including land disposal) irrigation, recreation,
fish wildlife propagation, and all other beneficial purposes, including storage for each
of the above purposes."
Canyon Creek Calls
There are no decreed Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) instream flow rights
on Canyon Creek downstream of the Vulcan Ditch.
A formal call had not been recorded on Canyon Creek until 2018, when a call was
placed by the Williams Canal, which is located on Canyon Creek above the Vulcan Ditch
headgate. Williams Canal was on call between August 13, 2018 and October 5, 2018,
and is senior to the Vulcan Ditch first priority. The swing right (most senior water right
that was curtailed due to the call) during this time frame was also senior to the Vulcan
Ditch first priority. The Williams Canal is located above the Canyon Creek stream gage
that is used in Section 4.2.1 to evaluate physical supply; therefore, the physical supply
analysis already reflects the availability after senior diversions by the Williams Canal.
Between the Williams Canal point of diversion and the Vulcan Ditch headgate, three
other tributaries join Canyon Creek and contribute flow that would be available to the
Vulcan Ditch: East Canyon Creek, Possum Creek, and Bearwallow Creek. Williams
Canal and other key water rights on Canyon Creek and its tributaries are shown in
Figure 4-1.
The first priority in the Vulcan Ditch is relatively senior on Canyon Creek, and a call has
not historically been placed by a downstream senior diverter; however, there are water
rights senior to the Vulcan Ditch that are located downstream that could place a call.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
19
Ditches located on Canyon Creek downstream of the Vulcan Ditch which have senior
water rights are:
• Canon Creek Ditch: Historical structure only, all Canon Creek Ditch water rights have
been transferred to the Williams Canal upstream on Canyon Creek.
• Mings-Chenoweth-Wolverton Ditch
• Wolverton Ditch
• Johnson Ditch
The availability of Canyon Creek physical supply to support diversions by the Vulcan
Ditch and other senior diverters is discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.1.
Colorado River Calls
The Colorado River typically calls every year near the Grand Junction area by a
collection of irrigation and power water rights commonly referred to as the Cameo Call.
Water rights that were perfected before October 16, 1977 are beneficiaries of the Green
Mountain Reservoir Historic Users Pool (HUP). HUP-protected water rights benefit from
replacement water releases from Green Mountain Reservoir which allows them to divert
during times of a Cameo Call.
While even the first priority under the Vulcan Ditch is junior to the Cameo Call, both the
first and second priorities are HUP-protected and may therefore divert even during times
of a Cameo Call.
Riverbend System Legal Supply
Nutrient Farm residential developments in Areas 1, 3, and 4 will be connected to the
existing Riverbend Water Company’s potable water distribution system and wastewater
collection system. The Riverbend HOA’s potable water supply comes from the five
Riverbend Wells. The Riverbend Wells were awarded their own water rights in W2125,
for 0.67 cfs from each well with a cumulative volumetric limit of 340 AF/year from all five
wells.
The anticipated additional demand on the Riverbend System (including indoor use and
outdoor use) is estimated at average day demand of 0.02 cfs and a peak hour demand
of 0.14 cfs based on a peaking factor of six times the average daily demand (as
specified in Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-203). The
annual demands are estimated at 14.6 AF, with 2.3 AF of consumptive use. These
demands include indoor and outdoor demands, as Areas 1, 3 and 4 will have potable
irrigation. Initial assessment of the Riverbend Water Company water rights shows it has
sufficient water to supply the proposed 17 lots.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
20
Figure 4-1: Canyon Creek Physical and Legal Supply Map
Nutrient Farm September 2020
21
4.2 Physical Water Supply
Physical water supply is discussed for each of the two proposed sources: the Vulcan
Ditch which will serve Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and the Riverbend System which will serve
Areas 1, 3, and 4. Based on the analysis of stream flow, the Farm’s Vulcan Ditch
physical supply can support anticipated demands. Based on analysis of streamflow and
hydrogeology near the Riverbend Wells, there is sufficient supply to support the
additional demands to the Riverbend System from Areas 1, 3, and 4.
Vulcan Ditch Physical Water Supply
The Farm’s Vulcan Ditch water can legally be taken at the Vulcan Ditch headgate or at
its decreed alternate point of diversion at the Coal Ridge Pump and Pipeline.
The Vulcan Ditch headgate is located on Canyon Creek approximately 1.5 miles north of
the confluence of Canyon Creek and the Colorado River as shown in Figure 2-1. The
Vulcan Ditch historically crossed the Colorado River in an inverted siphon and flowed
through the Nutrient Farm property; however, the siphon and other areas of the ditch
need repair. Necessary repairs are planned to re-establish the historical ditch and
replace the siphon with a hanging pipeline over the Colorado River allowing delivery of
Vulcan Ditch water to the Farm.
The Coal Ridge Pump and Pipeline diverts from the south bank of the Colorado River on
the eastern portion of the Farm property. Until the planned repairs and replacement of
the Vulcan Ditch and siphon are complete, the Farm plans to pump water to the property
from the Coal Ridge Pump and Pipeline for immediate irrigation needs in Area 5. In the
future, the Coal Ridge Pump and Pipeline will remain an alternate point of diversion.
Because the Farm’s water supply may be diverted from either Canyon Creek or the
Colorado River, physical water supply adequacy is discussed for both sources.
Canyon Creek Physical Water Supply
There are no currently recording stream gages on Canyon Creek. Historical data was
available from 1970 through 1982 for Canyon Creek above the Vulcan Ditch and for two
tributaries that flow into Canyon Creek below that gage and above the Vulcan Ditch,
East Canyon Creek and Possum Creek. To accurately represent the total flow available
at the Vulcan Ditch headgate, SGM added together the daily flow for each of these three
gages: Canyon Creek Above New Castle (USGS Gage 09085200), East Canyon Creek
Near New Castle (USGS Gage 09085300), and Possum Creek near New Castle (USGS
Gage 09085400). Bearwallow Creek also flows into Canyon Creek above the Vulcan
Ditch headgate, as shown in Figure 4-1, but streamflow in this tributary is not gaged. A
historical gage was also located downstream of the Vulcan Ditch headgate (USGS Gage
0908550) but was not used due to limited period of record and its downstream location.
The stream gages are shown on Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-2 shows the average Canyon Creek streamflow above the Vulcan Ditch
headgate (sum of flow at the three gages) for each month of the year, for the average of
wet years, normal years, and dry years. Dry years were defined as the lowest yielding 25
percentile years during the period of record for the total annual streamflow for the sum of
the three gages. Wet years were defined as the highest yielding 75 percentile during the
period of record. Normal years were defined as the middle 50 percentile during the
period of record.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
22
The Vulcan Ditch is subordinate to other senior diverters for use of the physically
available water in Canyon Creek. To account for this, SGM summarized the water rights
which are senior to the Vulcan ditch first and second priorities and which divert below the
three gages and above the confluence of Canyon Creek and the Colorado River; these
senior diverters are shown on Figure 4-1 as “competing diversions” because they are
competing for the water physically available based on SGM’s streamflow analysis.
Competing diverters located downstream of the Vulcan Ditch headgate could place a call
on Canyon Creek limiting available diversions by the Vulcan Ditch. Competing diverters
located upstream of the Vulcan Ditch headgate but downstream of the gages could
divert water upstream and the Vulcan Ditch could not call them out. Any diversions by
senior diverters located above these three gages are already reflected in the physical
water availability measured by the gages.
In addition to showing the average Canyon Creek streamflow, Figure 4-2 shows an
overlay of the competing water rights: other water rights which divert in the stretch
between the stream gages and the Colorado River confluence and which would be
competing with the Vulcan Ditch for physically available water supply.
A total of 11.2 cfs of competing water rights are senior to the Vulcan Ditch first priority.
All of these senior water rights are decreed for irrigation use only (resulting in diversions
from April through October only) with the exception of 1.0 cfs in the Mings Chenoweth
Wolverton Ditch, which is decreed for domestic use. These competing water rights
including:
• Mings Chenoweth Wolverton Ditch: 9.0 cfs from Canyon Creek
• Wolverton Ditch: 0.4 cfs from Canyon Creek
• Johnson Ditch: 0.56 from Canyon Creek
• Wolverton Mesa Ditch: 0.32 cfs from Canyon Creek
• Warner Ditch: 0.40 cfs from East Canyon Creek
• Lewis No. 1 Ditch 0.44 cfs from Possum Creek
• Lewis No. 2 Ditch 0.04 cfs from East Canyon Creek
A total of 5.4 cfs of competing water rights are senior to the Vulcan Ditch second priority,
all of which are decreed for irrigation only. These competing water rights include:
• Mings Chenoweth Wolverton Ditch: 5.2 cfs from Canyon Creek
• Warner Ditch, Lewis No. 1 Ditch, or Lewis No. 2 Ditch: 0.243 cfs, with each headgate
decreed as alternate points of diversion for the same water right.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
23
Figure 4-2: Canyon Creek Stream Flow Analysis Above Vulcan Ditch Headgate
The Canyon Creek hydrograph follows the typical pattern of a snowmelt-driven stream.
Flows rise steeply during runoff season, typically April through June, and then taper back
down to base flow by the fall. Flows are higher in April for normal years and dry years
than for wet years, likely related to warmer temperatures and earlier runoff. Peak flow
occurs in May for dry years and in June for wet and normal years. From April through
July there is enough water in Canyon Creek during wet, normal, and dry years to provide
for the 10 cfs of Vulcan Ditch first and second priority water rights and for all of the
competing water rights.
During late irrigation season, August through October, Canyon Creek flows are declining
toward base flows. During late irrigation season of wet and normal years there is enough
flow in Canyon Creek to provide for the 10 cfs of Vulcan Ditch first and second priority
water rights and for all of the competing water rights. However, during late irrigation
season of a dry year, Canyon Creek flows will be restricted, and there may only be
enough physical and legal availability for the Farm to divert under the Vulcan Ditch first
priority (6 cfs total, 5.36 cfs owned by the Farm). This amount of water would be enough
to supply peak hour demands for the potable systems and the maximum day demand for
the non-potable system. If supply is limited for the non-potable system, the Farm can
reduce irrigation of lawn and landscaping and prioritize irrigation of key crops or can
rotate irrigation of different areas.
Avg of:Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Wet 24 20 18 17 19 33 195 616 196 39 26 29
Normal 26 22 19 20 22 40 265 378 84 32 28 30
Dry 19 18 17 17 16 45 192 161 33 20 17 21
1
10
100
1,000
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep OctAverage Streamflow (cfs)(log scale)Months
Average Canyon Creek
Flow (1970-1982)
Vulcan Ditch 2nd Priority Competing Right (senior to Vulcan 2nd)
Vulcan Ditch 1st Priority Competing Right (senior to Vulcan 1st)
Average of Wet Years Average of Normal Years
Average of Dry Years
Competing Senior to Vulcan 2nd: 5.4 cfs
Competing Rights Senior to Vulcan Ditch 1st Priority: 11.2 cfs
Water rights
competing with Vulcan
Ditch for physically
available flow in
Vulcan Ditch 1st Priority: 6 cfs
Vulcan 2nd Priority: 4 cfs
Nutrient Farm September 2020
24
Flows are typically lowest between January and March when other senior irrigation water
rights holders on Canyon Creek are not diverting. During dry years, the average
streamflow is at its lowest in March, at 16 cfs. During the period of record, flow only
dropped below 10 cfs twice, in January of 1979 and in August of 1979 (the driest year
during the period of record). Typically, even during low flow times of dry years, Canyon
Creek can supply more than the total 10 cfs of water rights under the Vulcan Ditch first
and second priority. The peak hour demand during non-irrigation season (to supply the
potable needs) is less than 1 cfs. Canyon Creek flow during non-irrigation is sufficient to
provide for the Farm’s potable demands.
In summary, the Canyon Creek physical and legal supply is sufficient to provide for the
Farm’s demands during all months in wet and normal years, and during November
through July of dry years. During late irrigation season of dry years, the Canyon Creek
physical and legal supply is sufficient to provide for the Farm’s peak hour potable
demands. However, dry year supply available for non-potable demands may be limited
to the Farm’s 5.36 cfs in the Vulcan Ditch first priority. The Farms 5.36 cfs is sufficient to
meet max day demand but may require some irrigation reductions or storage to meet
peak hour demand.
Colorado River Physical Supply
SGM summarized daily flow in the Colorado River at the gage located below Glenwood
Springs (USGS Gage 09085100) for the entire available period of record, 1967 through
2019. Figure 4-3 shows average Colorado River streamflow for each month of the year,
for the average of wet years, normal years, and dry years. Dry years were defined as the
lowest yielding 25 percentile years during the period of record. Wet years were defined
as the highest yielding 75 percentile, and normal years as the middle 50 percentile
during the period of record. The 53-year period of record had 13 dry years, 13 wet years,
and 27 normal years.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
25
Figure 4-3: Colorado River Streamflow Analysis
As seen in Figure 4-3, average flow in the Colorado River stays above 1,000 cfs even
during the winter, largely due to the influence of the Shoshone Power Plant located
upstream in Glenwood Canyon. The senior 1905 Shoshone water right for 1,250 cfs and
junior 1941 water right for 158 cfs effectively “pull” water to the plant’s diversion point
and past other upstream diverters (including transmountain diversions). As the
hydroelectric use is non-consumptive, this operation ensures adequate Colorado River
flows in the Middle Colorado River, where the Farm is located. Physical supply from the
Colorado River is adequate. Supply availability from the Colorado River is more driven
by the water rights (legal availability).
Diversions at the Coal Ridge Pump and Pipeline alternate point of diversion will be
limited to the amount of water physically and legally available at the original point of
diversion at the Vulcan Ditch headgate on Canyon Creek. Based on SGM’s analysis, the
physical and legal availability at the Vulcan Ditch headgate is adequate, as described
previously in Section 4.2.1. To confirm in real time that water is physically available at
the original point of diversion and allow for diversions at the Coal Ridge Pump and
Pipeline from the Colorado River, the Division of Water Resources may require the Farm
to install a measuring structure in Canyon Creek near the Vulcan Ditch headgate.
Avg of:Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Wet 2,050 1,747 1,636 1,652 1,991 3,484 9,726 15,752 9,064 3,774 2,765 2,388
Normal 1,808 1,507 1,441 1,437 1,651 2,616 6,691 10,192 5,128 2,722 2,262 2,106
Dry 1,568 1,313 1,220 1,177 1,331 2,010 4,117 4,564 2,341 2,064 1,896 1,907
1,000
10,000
100,000
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep OctAverage Streamflow (cfs) (log scale)Months
Average Colorado River Flow (1967-2019)
Average of Wet Years Average of Normal Years Average of Dry Years
Nutrient Farm September 2020
26
Riverbend System Physical Supply
Based on previous use, and based on the hydrogeology of the setting in which the
Riverbend Wells are drilled, these wells are not likely to be limited by physical supply as
long as they have sufficient water rights to allow them to continue diverting. A new well
drilled for the Area 5 farmhouse would also be in the Colorado River alluvium and would
also not likely be limited by physical supply.
Hydrogeology
The Riverbend Wells are drilled between 43 feet and 61 feet deep in the Colorado River
alluvium, and all of the five wells are located within 300 feet of the south bank of the
Colorado River. Based on well completion and pump installation report for Riverbend
Well Nos. 3 and 4 (Permit Nos. 018146-F and 018147-F, respectively), the entire drilled
depth of the wells is boulders and gravels, alluvial type deposits which allow relatively
easy transmission of groundwater. Water was found at 22 feet below ground surface for
Well No. 4, and 5 feet below ground surface for Well No. 3, indicating that the elevation
of the groundwater table is similar to the elevation of surface water in the Colorado
River.
The Riverbend Wells are pulling water from the Colorado River alluvium, in close
proximity to the Colorado River and through loose alluvial deposits that allow
groundwater to flow relatively quickly. Physical water supply from these wells is therefore
not expected to be a limiting factor, compared to the water rights.
Riverbend Wells
All of the Riverbend Wells have been drilled. For Well No. 3, the well test completed on
January 14, 1977 during the well completion and pump installation showed a sustained
yield of 97 gpm (0.22 cfs) over eight hours. However, Well No. 3 is apparently capable of
producing up to 197 gpm (0.44 cfs) as evidenced by the fact that 0.44 cfs have been
made absolute from this well. For Well No. 4, the well test completed on June 1, 1975
during well completion and pump installation showed a sustained yield of 75 gpm (0.17
cfs) over four hours. It is expected that when Well Nos. 1, 2, and 5 are developed they
can be expected to produce at similar rates due to the loose alluvial aquifer
characteristics. Based on the individual observed pumping rates of Well Nos. 3 and 4
(0.44 cfs and 0.17 cfs respectively) and the geology of the area the Riverbend Wells
likely would be able to produce up to their decreed rates of 0.67 cfs. Therefore, the
Riverbend Wells are not likely to be limited by physical supply, and it is expected that the
wells will be able to accommodate the additional demands from the 17 lots in Areas 1, 3,
and 4.
Water Quality
Water supply from the Vulcan Ditch may come from either Canyon Creek or the
mainstem of the Colorado River. Water quality samples have not been collected. SGM
consulted the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water
Quality Control Commission (WQCC) Regulation 93 Section 303(d) list of impaired
waters and monitoring and evaluation list, for information about general water quality
parameters of concern from each source.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
27
5.1 Water Supply Quality
Water quality is discussed for both possible Vulcan Ditch sources, Canyon Creek and
the Colorado River.
Canyon Creek
Canyon Creek should be the preferred source for the Farm’s water supply from a water
quality perspective, based on information available from CDPHE, and because smaller
tributaries generally have better water quality and less sediment than the mainstem of
the Colorado River. Many existing homes and farms already use Canyon Creek as a
water source.
Canyon Creek, segment ID COLCLC07a, is not listed for any parameters under the
303(d) list, either for impairment or for monitoring and evaluation.
Colorado River
The section of the Colorado River that runs past Nutrient Farm is segment ID
COLCLC01_A, Colorado River from Paradise Creek to below the confluence with Rifle
Creek. COLCLC01_A is on the 303(d) list for arsenic (total) and temperature impairment
and is on the monitoring and evaluation list for sediment. Temperature is a problem for
aquatic life, but not a concern for the Farm’s water supply. Water with arsenic can be
treated for potable use by reduction, coagulation, and filtration, depending on its oxidized
form, or by membrane filtration. Nutrient Farm should also further investigate arsenic
levels with respect to planned agricultural uses if it plans to use Colorado River water.
Sediment issues could be mitigated by the Farm’s plan to deliver ditch water first to the
Supply Pond, allowing some settling of sediment to occur in the pond.
The City of Rifle, located about twenty miles downstream, uses the Colorado River for its
municipal supply. The City of Rifle recently constructed a new microfiltration membrane
water treatment plant, the Rifle Regional Water Purification Facility. The major water
quality issues considered during the design of the new Rifle plant were iron and
manganese, which mainly cause issues with taste and color. Iron and manganese will
likely also be water quality parameters of concern for the Farm’s potable water treatment
design. The plant’s design also treats the elevated levels of arsenic, but arsenic was not
one of the main drivers for the new plant. Rifle also must manage sediment from its
Colorado River supply; it does so by settling the river water in settling ponds before
treatment. Similarly, settling will occur in the Farm Supply Pond and will help mitigate
sediment issues.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
28
Summary of Findings
Based upon Nutrient Farm’s development plans and other information considered within
this report, SGM has developed the following preliminary conclusions regarding the
Farm’s water supply adequacy.
6.1 Conclusions
1. Nutrient Farm owns 8.93 cfs of diversions and 393 AF of consumptive use in the
Vulcan Ditch, which may legally be used year-round for uses including municipal,
commercial, industrial, irrigation, domestic, fish, recreational, and others as decreed
in W2127 and 84CW349.
2. The total annual consumptive use of Nutrient Farm’s anticipated demands is
estimated to be 391.8 AF/year. This amount is within the Farm’s ownership of 393
AF of Vulcan Ditch consumptive use. The annual demands (diversions) associated
with the calculated consumptive use are anticipated to be 623 AF/year. These
annual amounts include demands and consumptive use to be served by the Farm’s
Vulcan Ditch water and by a proposed new well for Area 5, as itemized below:
a. The annual consumptive use of demands to be supplied by the Farm’s Vulcan
Ditch water is estimated at 391.7 AF.
b. The annual consumptive use of indoor demands for the Area 5 farmhouse to be
supplied by a new well is 0.07 AF. While this new well will likely qualify as an
exempt well (would not require augmentation), Nutrient Farm has conservatively
set aside 0.07 AF of Vulcan Ditch HCU credits for this use in the event that the
credits are needed to augment the well uses.
3. The Farm’s anticipated diversion rates (including demands to be served by the
Farm’s Vulcan Ditch water and by a proposed new well for Area 5) are within its legal
water rights ownership.
a. The peak hour demand for the Farm during irrigation season is estimated, based
on County peaking factors, at 8.7 cfs, which includes non-potable demand for
farm irrigation operations. The peak hour demand is within the Farm’s legal
ownership of 8.93 cfs in the Vulcan Ditch. The peak hour demand on the Farm’s
potable system for Areas 2 and 5 – 8 is estimated at 0.24 cfs. The Farm’s
potable treatment and distribution system(s) will be designed to accommodate
this peak hour demand.
b. The maximum day demand for the Farm during irrigation season is estimated at
8.6 AF/day (4.3 cfs), which includes non-potable demand for farm operations
such as irrigation. The maximum day demand on the Farm’s potable system is
estimated at 0.23 AF/day (0.12 cfs).
c. The entire Farm is estimated to have an average day demand during non-
irrigation season (November through March) of 0.09 AF/day (0.05 cfs). The
average day demand during irrigation season (April through October) is
estimated at 2.9 AF/day (1.4 cfs), which includes non-potable demand for farm
operations such as irrigation.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
29
4. The Farm can operate under the decrees for Case No. W2127 and Case No.
84CW349, and does not require additional water rights or augmentation sources.
5. The annual consumptive use of demands to be supplied by the Riverbend System
(Areas 1, 3, and 4) is estimated at 2.3 AF, with an annual diversion volume of 14.6
AF. Riverbend Water Company has water rights decreed to the five Riverbend Wells
in Case No W2125, with an annual cumulative volumetric limit of 340 AF/year from
all five wells. Initial assessment shows that the Riverbend Water Company has
enough water to support this added consumptive use from the 17 proposed lots.
6. The anticipated diversion rates for Areas 1, 3, and 4 to be served by connection to
the Riverbend System are within the legal diversion rates decreed in W2125 for 0.67
cfs from each of the five Riverbend Wells.
a. The additional peak hour demand on the Riverbend System from Areas 1, 3 and
4, is estimated at 0.14 cfs (for indoor and outdoor uses).
b. The additional maximum day demand on the Riverbend System from Areas 1, 3
and 4, is estimated at 0.135 AF/day (0.07 cfs), which occurs during summer and
includes irrigation of lawns from the potable system.
c. The additional average day demand on the Riverbend System from Areas 1, 3
and 4 during non-irrigation season (November through March) is estimated at
0.033 AF/day (0.017 cfs). The average day demand during irrigation season
(April through October) is estimated at 0.045 AF/day (0.023 cfs), which includes
potable irrigation of lawn and landscaping.
d. Riverbend Water Company is willing to commit and has the ability to provide an
adequate water supply for the proposed development of 17 lots in Areas 1, 3,
and 4.
7. Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will be supplied from the Vulcan Ditch. Based on the quantity
and seniority of the Vulcan Ditch water rights associated with the Farm property and
the analysis of streamflow availability in Canyon Creek and the Colorado River, SGM
believes that water is physically and legally available to support both for the annual
consumptive use (392.7 AF/year) and the peak hourly demands (8.7 cfs) for the
areas served directly by the Vulcan Ditch.
a. Canyon Creek physical and legal supply is adequate for the Farm’s peak hour
demand during wet and normal years and November through July of dry years.
b. During late irrigation season (August through October) of dry years, the Canyon
Creek physical and legal supply is sufficient to provide for the Farm’s peak hour
potable demands and max day non-potable demands. During dry years in the
late irrigation season available stream flow may be limited to the Farms 5.36 cfs
ownership in the first priority due to competing senior diversions and reduced
streamflows. Limited diversions of 5.36 cfs is sufficient to meet max day demand
of 4.3 cfs, and peak hour non-potable demand can be met with storage and
irrigation schedule modifications. If required during times of key supply shortage,
Farm staff can prioritize irrigation of key crops while reducing irrigation of lawns
and landscaping.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
30
8. The physical supply to the Riverbend Wells is sufficient for the anticipated additional
demand from Areas 1, 3, and 4, based on the hydrogeology and measured pumping
rates from the drilled wells.
9. The Farm can legally divert its Vulcan Ditch water at the original Vulcan Ditch
headgate on Canyon Creek or at the decreed alternate point of diversion at the Coal
Ridge Pump and Pipeline on the Colorado River. Diversions at the Coal Ridge Pump
and Pipeline will be limited to the amount of water physically and legally available at
the original point of diversion at the Vulcan Ditch headgate on Canyon Creek. SGM’s
streamflow analysis suggests that the physical and legal availability from Canyon
Creek is sufficient.
10. Canyon Creek should be the preferred source for the Farm’s water supply over the
Colorado River from a water quality perspective. Potable use from either source will
require treatment.
Nutrient Farm September 2020
31
References
• Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-203 Paragraph M:
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
• Town of New Castle Municipal Code, Sections 13.24.030 and 13.20.060.
• Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) Regulation No. 43, Table 6-2: Design
Wastewater Flow
• Colorado State Engineer’s Office (SEO) General Guidelines for Substitute Water
Supply Plans for Sand and Gravel Pits (version 4/1/2011)
• PoultryHub. Water consumption rates for chickens.
http://www.poultryhub.org/nutrition/nutrient-requirements/water-consumption-rates-
for-chickens/
• University of Tennessee Extension, Institute of Agriculture. PB 1836 - Nursery
Irrigation: A Guide for Reducing Risk and Improving Production.
• University of Tennessee Extension, Institute of Agriculture. Sustainable Nursery
Irrigation Management Series Part II: Strategies to Increase Nursery Crop Irrigation
Efficiency.
• Colorado State Forest Service & Colorado State University, 2020. Watering.
https://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-trees/selecting-planting-and-caring-for-
trees/watering/
• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality
Control Commission (WQCC). Regulation 93: Section 303(d) list; and Regulation 37:
Stream Classifications and water Quality Standards
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Warranty Deeds (Water Rights)
APPENDIX A
WARRANTY DEEDS (WATER RIGHTS)