Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Platte Valley Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Platte Valley Water Partnership proposes shared river capture, storage and municipal conveyance to sustain ag communities and supply Front Range partners
Summary
Parker Water and the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District presented a multi‑phase plan to capture high South Platte flows with shared diversion and storage, potentially yielding tens of thousands of acre‑feet annually and offering an alternative to buy‑and‑dry municipal water transfers; cost estimates range from about $480 million with partners to nearly $900 million if delivered alone.
Representatives from Parker Water, the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District and local irrigation managers outlined the Platte Valley Water Partnership, a multi‑phase proposal to capture excess South Platte runoff, store it near the river and share infrastructure between agricultural and municipal partners.
Project components and operations: The partnership filed for a junior water right in 2019 at a Lower South Platte diversion and proposes a near‑river capture facility and pump station to deliver water to a new 6,500‑acre‑foot buffer reservoir. From that capture the project could direct water to three uses: (1) recharge and local agricultural distribution in the lower basin, (2) a large proposed Fremont Butte reservoir (~75,000 acre‑feet), and (3) conveyance to Parker Water through roughly 120 miles of pipeline and multiple pump stations for municipal use and treatment prior to storage in Reuter Hesse Reservoir.
Expected yields and costs: Presenters said high‑flow capture years could produce tens of thousands of acre‑feet; for example, 2023 runoff could have yielded tens of thousands of acre‑feet captured with sufficient infrastructure. The full project’s average annual yield was characterized as roughly 43,000 acre‑feet and the engineering cost range presented was approximately $480 million with partners up to $900 million if built by a single sponsor.
Why proponents say it matters: Lower South Platte officials said the shared‑infrastructure model makes municipal‑agricultural partnership feasible by avoiding buy‑and‑dry outcomes; they emphasized protections in agreements to prohibit pipeline use for permanent buy‑and‑dry transfers and noted wildlife and recharge benefits tied to managed storage and augmentation operations.
Funding approach: Parker Water described an impact fee on new development and other financing tools (revenue bonds, grant pursuit, potential GO bond or property tax mechanisms) to cover municipal shares; Lower South Platte cited bonding authority, allotment contracts and pursuing grants to fund agricultural shares.
Committee reaction: Committee members praised the collaborative model, noted the project’s potential to preserve working farms and habitats, and asked technical questions on funding, hydrology and operational assumptions. Presenters said the partnership could be a model for future basin‑scale water development if financing and permitting proceed.
