Conjunctive Water Management Conceptual Study

Conjunctive Water
Management Conceptual Study

August 15, 2012
Conjunctive Water Management Conceptual Study

Released
August 15 , 2012
1697 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200

Golden, Colorado 80401
Table of Contents
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction and Project Understanding ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Key Issues in the Central Platte River Valley ................................................................................ 1-1
1.1.1 The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program ..................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Over-appropriation above Elm Creek .............................................................................. 1-2
1.1.3 Development of Integrated Water Management Plans ................................................. 1-2
1.2 Project Setting and Background ................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.1 General Description of Conjunctive Water Management .............................................. 1-3
1.2.2 Conjunctive Water Management in Other States .......................................................... 1-3
1.2.3 Conjunctive Water Management Applied to CNPPID ..................................................... 1-4
1.2.3.1 Overview of the Existing System ............................................................................. 1-4
1.2.3.2 Current Conjunctive Management in the CNPPID System .................................... 1-4
1.2.3.3 Proposed Enhancements to Conjunctive Water Management at CNPPID ........... 1-5
2. Study Objectives and Tasks ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
3. Assessment of Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Assessment of Access to the Groundwater Mound ..................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Approach and Assumptions............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions of the Aquifer ...................................................................................... 3-4
3.3 Assessment of Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 3-4
3.3.1 Historical Losses from CNPPID Canals and Laterals ..................................................... 3-4
3.3.2 Spatial Distribution of Groundwater Recharge from Canals ......................................... 3-5
3.3.3 Recharge Strategies ........................................................................................................ 3-5
3.4 Water Budget Development .......................................................................................................... 3-7
3.4.1 Process for Estimating Net Irrigation Requirement ....................................................... 3-7
3.4.2 Water Budget Results ...................................................................................................... 3-7
4. Assessment of Effects and Benefits of Conjunctive Water Management ............................................ 4-1
4.1 Modeling Tools ............................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 OPSTUDY .......................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1.1 Modifications to OPSTUDY ...................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.1.2 Description of OPSTUDY Modeling Process ........................................................... 4-2
4.1.2 COHYST ............................................................................................................................. 4-3
4.1.2.1 Integration of groundwater modeling. .................................................................... 4-3
4.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 4-4
i
Table of Contents
4.3 Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios ................................................................................ 4-5

4.3.1 Operational Goals of Scenarios ...................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.2 Scenario Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 4-6
4.3.3 Scenario 1 Simulation Results ....................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.3.1 Surface Water and Hydropower Effects ................................................................. 4-7
4.3.3.2 Groundwater Effects ............................................................................................... 4-9
4.3.4 Scenario 2 Simulation Results ..................................................................................... 4-10
4.3.4.1 Surface Water and Hydropower Effects ............................................................... 4-10
4.3.4.2 Groundwater Effects ............................................................................................. 4-11
4.3.5 Scenario 3 Simulation Results ..................................................................................... 4-12
4.3.5.1 Surface Water Effects ........................................................................................... 4-12
5. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 5-2
6. Limitations ................................................................................................................................................ 6-1
References .................................................................................................................................................. REF-1
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Study Area Overview Map
Figure 3-1. Irrigation Well Needs in Main CNPPID Service Area
Figure 3-2. Annual Delivery Losses and Delivery Efficiency for CNPPID Irrigation System
Figure 3-3. Summary of Average 1954-2002 Historical Monthly Delivery Loss Amounts from CNPPID
Irrigation Distribution System
Figure 3-4. Assessment of Capabilities of Open Canals and Laterals to Distribute Recharge and
Recharge Strategies
Figure 3-5. Summary of CNPPID Water Budget
Figure 4-1. Use of Groundwater Mound in Combination with Lake McConaughy Storage under
Conjunctive Water Management Scenario 1
Figure 4-2. Effects of Conjunctive Water Management Scenario 1 on Annual Flows at Grand Island
Figure 4-3. Effects of Conjunctive Water Management Scenario 1 on Flows at Grand Island During Times
of Shortage
Figure 4-4. Effects of Conjunctive Water Management Scenario 1 on Average Monthly Flows at Grand
Island During Times of Shortage
Figure 4-5. Mounding/Decline Potential at the End of Scenario 1 Simulation
Figure 4-6. Use of Groundwater Mound in Combination with Lake McConaughy Storage under
Conjunctive Water Management Scenario 2
Figure 4-7. Effects of Conjunctive Water Management Scenario 2 on Annual Flows at Grand Island
ii
Table of Contents
Figure 4-8. Effects of Conjunctive Water Management Scenario 2 on Flows at Grand Island During Times
of Shortage
Figure 4-9. Effects of Conjunctive Water Management Scenario 2 on Average Monthly Flows at Grand
Island During Times of Shortage
Figure 4-10. Mounding/Decline Potential at the End of Scenario 2 Simulation
Figure 4-11. Additional Increase in Flow at Grand Island (Beyond Scenario 1 Improvements) During
Times of Shortage Due to Additional Storage of Various Capacities
Figure 4-12. Effects of Conjunctive Water Management Scenario 3 on Flows at Grand Island During
Times of Shortage
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Water Budget for CNPPID System ............................................................................................... 3-8
Table 4-2. Operational Goals for Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios .......................................... 4-6
Table 4-3. Description of Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios ....................................................... 4-7
Table 4-4. Summary of Scenario 1 Stream Flow and Hydropower Effects ................................................ 4-8
Table 4-5. Summary of Scenario 2 Stream Flow and Hydropower Effects .............................................. 4-10
Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Conjunctive Water Management Program Benefits ............................. 5-1
iii
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations
AF
Acre-feet
CALMIT
Center for Advanced Land Management

Information Technologies
CNPPID
Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation

District
COHYST
Cooperative Hydrology Study
CPNRD
Central Platte Natural Resources District
CPR Model Central Platte River OPSTUDY model

EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
IMP
Integrated Surface Water and Groundwater

Management Plan
NDNR
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
NIR
Net irrigation requirement
NPPD
Nebraska Public Power District
NRD
Natural Resources District
PRRIP
Platte River Recovery Implementation

Program
TPNRD
Twin Platte Natural Resources District
iv
Executive Summary
Brown and Caldwell evaluated the conceptual-level feasibility of operating the surface water irrigation
system owned and managed by the Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (CNPPID) to
enhance the conjunctive use and overall utilization of surface and groundwater supplies. This summary
highlights the Conjunctive Water Management Conceptual Study (Conceptual Study).
Nebraska faces many challenges in stretching its limited water supplies to meet a wide variety of
demands. The Platte River in central Nebraska is a focal point for many of the complex water supply and
demand issues facing the state. Large water demands for irrigation, power production, environmental,
and other uses are sometimes not completely satisfied because of water supply variability and
insufficient water storage and supply facilities to meet demands during drier hydrologic periods. In fact,
environmental demands for Platte River flows are often not completely satisfied during normal
hydrologic periods.
The shortage of water supplies has induced many regulatory and legislative actions in Nebraska over the
last two decades including establishment of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, the
designation of the Platte River (including the North Platte and South Platte Rivers in Nebraska) above
Elm Creek as being over-appropriated, and the requirement for the development of Integrated Surface
and Groundwater Management Plans. Conjunctive water management is a tool that can be used to help
meet the requirements of these regulatory and legislative actions.
Conjunctive Water Management

Conjunctive water management generally involves the coordinated use of surface water supplies and
storage with groundwater supplies and subsurface storage. In practical terms, conjunctive water
management involves using surface water supplies when they are plentiful such as wet weather years,
and using groundwater supplies during drier times such as drought years and summer/irrigation
seasons. When available, excess surface water supplies are captured and infiltrated into the aquifer to
replenish groundwater supplies. The groundwater supplies are then stored and used to meet demands
during drier periods. Conjunctive management provides an increase in the overall storage of water
supplies, allowing for more use of the total water supply. Conjunctive water management is a tool
already in use by surface water irrigators in Nebraska who drill groundwater wells to supplement surface
water supplies. In wet years when stream flows are high, these irrigators rely primarily on their surface
water supplies for irrigation. In drier years, the same irrigators will utilize the wells to provide
groundwater supplies.
The actions described in this report would increase the level of intentional conjunctive water
management at CNPPID. During drier times when stream flows are not as plentiful, the groundwater
mound under CNPPIDs service area would be the primary source of irrigation supply for CNPPID
irrigators. During wet hydrologic cycles, the mound would be recharged using available and excess
stream flow. The system of canals and laterals would be used primarily as recharge facilities rather than
facilities for irrigation water delivery. CNPPID irrigators would require groundwater wells so that they
could access the groundwater mound and the recharge delivered through the canal system. Enhanced
conjunctive water management offers benefits such as greater reliability of supply to CNPPID irrigators,
additional operational flexibility, increased flows in the Platte River during times of shortage, greater
stability of water levels in Lake McConaughy, and reduced non-beneficial water consumption.
ES-1
Executive Summary
Study Goal and Objectives

The overall goal of this study was to technically evaluate at a conceptual-level, the feasibility and
potential benefits of enhancing conjunctive water management activities in CNPPIDs service area. The
objectives evaluated to meet the goal of the study included:
Investigate feasibility of utilizing the canal and lateral system to enhance groundwater recharge
rather than direct deliveries of surface water for irrigation.
Understand the potential effects of enhanced conjunctive water management on hydropower
production.
Estimate potential Platte River flow increases resulting from conjunctive water management.
Identify potential recreational and flood control benefits at Lake McConaughy resulting from
conjunctive water management.
Estimate non-beneficial consumptive use savings that could be achieved.
To meet the study objectives, the following tasks were conducted.
Identify lands without irrigation wells.
Identify areas with inadequate aquifer.
Assess the existing delivery systems ability to recharge.
Develop a water budget.
Assess the effects and benefits of conjunctive water management.
Assessment of Existing Conditions

The study tasks included in the assessment of existing facilities/conditions were identification of lands
without irrigation wells, identification of areas with inadequate aquifer (if any), assessment of the
existing delivery systems ability to provide recharge, and development of a water budget. The approach
and results for each task are described below.
Assessment of Access to the Groundwater Mound
The approach for this task relied on maps of several features including irrigated lands, surface water
irrigated lands and registered, active irrigation wells. GIS was used to overlay the mapping layers and to
identify potential fields that would need irrigation wells. The mapped data used for the assessment
included irrigated lands, surface water irrigated lands, and registered active irrigation wells.
Using the process and assumptions described in Section 3.1.1 of the report, the number of wells needed
to provide groundwater to CNPPID irrigators that are wholly dependent on surface water was estimated
to be approximately 450 wells. The assessment also showed that approximately 75% of CNPPID lands
already have irrigation wells, which is consistent with recent reports from CNPPID.
Hydrogeologic Conditions of the Aquifer
The ability of the regional aquifer to yield suitable quantities of water as well as absorb significant
recharge in the vicinity of the CNPPID service area was evaluated in a qualitative manner using the
existing distribution of groundwater wells and hydraulic parameter distribution from the COHYST Eastern
Model Unit groundwater model.
The present day distribution of irrigated land with access to groundwater wells suggests that significant
groundwater resources are currently being utilized within the CNPPID service area. Additionally, the
surrounding agricultural lands immediately adjacent to the CNPPID service area are served by an
extensive distribution of groundwater wells. The large number and spatial distribution of groundwater
production wells supports the conclusion that the regional aquifer is viable and capable of supporting
pumping for irrigation purposes. The only exception to this conclusion is the area in the immediate
ES-2
Executive Summary
vicinity of the E-67 canal system, which has historically experienced poor hydrogeologic conditions
(CNPPID, 2011).
The distribution of hydraulic parameters from the COHYST model suggests that significant groundwater
resources are available throughout the CNPPID service area, as well as immediately adjacent to their
serviced lands. Additionally, given the degree of groundwater rise within the vicinity of the CNPPID
service area over the past 50 years, it is likely that groundwater reserves within and adjacent to the
CNPPID service area have been supported not only by suitable hydraulic aquifer conditions, but also a
consistent supply of groundwater recharge. This confluence of favorable conditions strongly supports
that the hydrogeologic conditions of the Ogallala aquifer within the CNPPID service area are adequate for
continued and additional development as a source of irrigation water supply as well as a receptor for
future planned recharge and replenishment efforts. In areas closer to the Platte River, depths to the
water table are more shallow and have a smaller volume of storage potential in the vadose zone which
will likely limit recharge potential in these areas.
Assessment of Infrastructure
A high-level analysis of historical delivery losses from CNPPID canals and laterals was conducted to
derive a general understanding of annual and monthly magnitudes of losses. Annual estimates of
seepage loss and delivery efficiency were developed based on data from CNPPID for the 1954 to 2007
time period. Overall system losses averaged approximately 140,000 AF per year from 1954 to 2007,
but in recent time periods (after the early 1980s), annual delivery losses ranged from 100,000 to
120,000 AF per year. Monthly estimates of delivery losses were also developed, and maximum losses
tend to occur in July and August with an average of approximately 40,000 AF per month. The delivery
loss estimates show that the existing canal and lateral system have a large capacity to provide recharge
to the aquifer.
Spatial Distribution of Groundwater Recharge from Canals
To estimate the impact of recharge from existing canals and infrastructure, a mapping-based
assessment was conducted assuming a radial influence of 1 mile for potential hydraulic response, or
mounding, around open canals and laterals within the CNPPID service area. It was assumed that, over
the short term, aquifer levels within 1 mile of a canal or lateral would increase due to seepage when
water is being delivered through the canal or lateral. In general, the mapping-based assessment
described above supports the conclusion that the network of existing CNPPID canals and laterals are
well distributed throughout the CNPPID service area and could provide recharge to most suitable
locations. In areas where open canals and laterals do not currently exist, it is possible that additional,
engineered recharge facilities may need to be constructed.
Recharge Strategies
Given the estimates of seepage loss from the existing canals and laterals from the 1954 to the 2007
time period and the assumed radius of influence of hydraulic response, or mounding, from future
potential groundwater recharge, three classes of groundwater recharge were identified as potential
strategies for future, conjunctive management scenarios. These strategies are listed and described
below:
Distributed Recharge, which refers to the use of existing canals, laterals, and field application to
spread a given volume of groundwater recharge over a large areal extent.
Localized Recharge, which refers to the use of engineered, rapid infiltration basins and underground
injection wells to emplace groundwater recharge in high volumes in localized areas.
ES-3
Executive Summary
Recharge and Recovery, which refers to managed recharge and groundwater extraction using existing
canal and lateral infrastructure and current as well as future pumping wells to maintain an optimal
depth to groundwater for crops as well as irrigation wells.
Three representative areas for application of the above recharge strategies were identified given the
assessment criteria of 1) current depths to groundwater and proximity to perennial drainages associated
with the Platte River, 2) proximity of existing recharge infrastructure, and 3) future, estimated mounding
potential associated with existing canals and laterals. However, these recharge strategies may be
applied where appropriate throughout the CNPPID service area and adjacent region depending upon
land availability, localized hydrogeologic conditions, and groundwater demands. Representative areas
where recharge strategies may be applied are summarized below:
Along the E-65 canal where depths to groundwater and associated, underground water storage
potential are greater than those immediately adjacent to the Platte River, distributed and localized
recharge are both viable options for conjunctive water management.
Immediately south of the central portion of the CNPPID service area, between the E-65 and eastern
extent of the Phelps canal is an area that may be suitable for higher volume, localized groundwater
recharge operations.
The eastern portion of the CNPPID service area served by the Phelps canal is suitable for localized
groundwater recharge and recovery operations. Aquifer conditions in this area are characterized by
shallower depths to the water table and are more susceptible to negative impacts to agricultural
fields from high water tables as well as seepage into subsurface domestic structures. A managed
recharge and extraction regime in this area would not only help optimize conjunctive water
management, but could also improve waterlogged conditions (to the extent that they exist) in the
eastern extent of the CNPPID service area via managed groundwater extraction and management of
seasonal water table elevations.
Water Budget Development

A water budget was developed for CNPPIDs system as a guideline for creating and evaluating
conjunctive water management scenarios. The water budget also served as a useful tool for
understanding the relative magnitude of water volumes diverted, returned, seeped, and consumed.
Data for the water budget was obtained from NDNR gaging records, CNPPID records of diversions into
the irrigation system and on-farm deliveries, and estimates of net irrigation requirements (NIR) derived
using output from the CROPSIM model.
The table below summarizes the water budget and shows the data source and timeframe over which
averages were calculated for each water budget component. Water budget data were estimated on a
system-wide basis and for the irrigation system.
ES-4
Executive Summary
Water Budget for CNPPID System

Component
Irrigation System
System-Wide
Total Annual Diversions into the Tri-County

Supply Canal
Amount
(AF/year)
Data Source
Timeframe
1,074,000 NDNR gage 142000
1954-2008
47,000 NDNR gage 143000
1954-2008
Returns through J-2
547,000 NDNR gage 144000
1954-2008
Seepage and Lake Evaporation Prior to

Delivery to Irrigation System
257,000 Calculated remainder
Amount Provided to Irrigation System
235,000 CNPPID records
1954-2007
1954-2007
Seepage Loss in Canals and Laterals
1954-2007
Historical CNPPID On-farm Irrigation

Deliveries
1954-2007
Net Irrigation Requirement
71,000
Returns through Jeffrey
Processed CROPSIM
output
1954-2005
A summary of the fate of water that is diverted into the CNPPID system at the Tri-County Supply Canal
Dam is listed below.
Approximately 55% of diversions are returned to the Platte River through the Jeffrey and J2 returns.
Approximately 24% of diversions seep into the aquifer or evaporate prior to reaching the irrigation
canals and laterals.
Approximately 15% of diversions seep into the aquifer or evaporate while being conveyed in irrigation
canals/laterals or is not consumed on-farm because of irrigation inefficiencies.
Approximately 6% of diversions are consumed by crops.
Assessment of the Effects and Benefits of Conjunctive Water Management

A conceptual-level assessment of the potential effects and benefits of various conjunctive water
management scenarios was conducted using available surface and groundwater modeling tools.
Individual surface water and groundwater modeling tools were used to assess the effects and benefits of
the conjunctive water management program described in this report. The surface water modeling was
conducted using OPSTUDY (a surface water modeling software package developed by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation), and the groundwater modeling was done using the Eastern Model Unit of the COHYST
groundwater model (a MODFLOW flow model). A description of the models, modifications to the models,
and the modeling process are provided in subsequent sections of this report.
Modeling Assumptions
Several assumptions were used in the creation of conjunctive water management scenarios and the
development of modeling inputs. The assumptions are listed below. See subsequent sections of this
report for further description of these assumptions.
The E-67 system would not be included in a conjunctive water management program.
Improved irrigation efficiency will result in less non-beneficial consumption.
ES-5
Executive Summary
Recharge diversions will cover canal/lateral seepage and on-farm net irrigation requirements.
Historical contributions to the Republican River basin will be maintained.
Maintenance flows may be necessary
The value of additional hydropower would be between $0.026 and $0.040 per kWh.
Description of Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios

Each of the conjunctive water management scenarios developed for this study had several overall
operational goals. The operational goals are described in the table below:
Operational Goals for Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios
Goal
Description
No negative impacts to CNPPID water users
A primary goal of the proposed conjunctive water management program is to

provide benefits CNPPID water users in terms of increased reliability of
irrigation water supplies through management of the groundwater mound and
Lake McConaughy.
Reduce shortages of stream flow at Grand Island
Through retiming of diversions and using both surface water and groundwater
storage, the conjunctive water management program should provide additional
stream flow in the central Platte River during times of stream flow shortage.
Beneficially use stored groundwater in the mound
By relying exclusively on groundwater during drier hydrologic cycles, the

groundwater mound will be used directly by CNPPID irrigators and indirectly as
a means to provide additional stream flows. In areas with high groundwater
tables, lowering the level of the groundwater mound could benefit agricultural
producers.
Alter operation of Lake McConaughy for additional

benefits
Each of the modeling scenarios sought to maintain storage amounts in Lake

McConaughy between 800,000 AF and 1,200,000 AF. Currently, Lake
McConaughy storage levels are generally managed higher than this. The goal
of storing less water in Lake McConaughy could result in the following:
Enhanced recreational opportunities by maintaining shoreline access and

stable water levels.
Additional flood control by preserving reservoir storage space to capture

high flows.
Reduced evaporation losses due to decreased surface area of the lake.
Maintain or increase hydropower production
Revenues from hydropower production are critical and should be either

maintained or increased by the conjunctive water management program.
Additional benefits to NPPD
NPPD has the first right to store inflows into Lake McConaughy at the
beginning of the storage season. Once NPPDs storage amount of 125,000 AF
has been filled, CNPPID and the Environmental Account (a storage account
held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) can fill. The conjunctive water
management program proposed in this study does not seek to alter NPPDs
storage right in any way. Through more reliance on the groundwater mound
and the potential to avoid large declines in storage levels in Lake McConaughy,
the conjunctive water management program could improve the supply of cool
water for Gerald Gentleman Station and enhance the reliability of supply to the
Kearney Canal.
Three scenarios of conjunctive water management were developed and were evaluated using the
modeling tools employed for this study. Scenarios 1 and 2 were developed as bookends to examine
effects and benefits of conjunctive water management using nearly the entire irrigation distribution
system (Scenario 1) and only a part of it (Scenario 2). Scenario 3 incorporated potential effects and
benefits of additional storage upstream of Grand Island. Descriptions of the scenarios are provided in
the table below:
ES-6
Executive Summary
Description of Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios

Description
E-65 and Phelps systems in
service
The first scenario assumed that recharge deliveries would be distributed using the E65 and Phelps Canals and associated laterals. The scenario assumed that no
deliveries for direct irrigation would be provided in these systems.
Only the E-65 system is used
The second scenario assumed that the E-65 Canal and associated laterals would be
used to distribute recharge in part of the CNPPID service area. It was assumed that
the Phelps Canal would not be needed for distribution of recharge or direct irrigation
deliveries, because the water table is relatively high in the eastern portion of the
CNPPID service area. CNPPID irrigators under the Phelps Canal would rely on
groundwater wells for irrigation supply. Under the E-65 system, groundwater levels
are generally lower, and there are more opportunities to recharge. Stream flow gains
were reduced to account for the lack of delivery into the Phelps Canal system.
An additional storage facility is

constructed upstream of Grand
Island
The third scenario used the results of Scenario 1 to assess additional stream flow
benefits that could result from the addition of a new surface water storage facility
upstream of Grand Island. The purpose of the storage facility would be to capture
additional excess stream flow and to fine tune management of shortages and excess.
The storage facility could be an off-channel reservoir, an aquifer storage and recovery
facility, an existing structure such as Elwood Reservoir (with new infrastructure), etc.
The specific location of the storage facility was not specified, and the analysis
assumed that the facility would be a surface water reservoir. The evaluation of
Scenario 3 was conducted using a spreadsheet tool rather than OPSTUDY and the
COHYST model.
Scenario 3
Scenario 2
Scenario 1
Scenario
Simulation Results
The results of Scenario 1 and 2 simulations with respect to stream flows and hydropower are described
in the table below. Further description and explanation of the parameters and output is provided in
subsequent sections of the report. In summary, both Scenario 1 and 2 provided enhancements to
stream flow at Grand Island, especially during times of shortage. In addition, simulations of both
scenarios showed maintained or increased levels of hydropower production.
Summary of Scenario 1 and 2 Stream Flow and Hydropower Effects
Change under Conjunctive Water
Management Program Scenario 1

Management Program Scenario 2
Increase of 31,000 AF/yr
(46,000 AF/yr with Environmental Account)
Kingsley
-9.7 MKWH/yr (decrease)
North Platte Hydro
+1.7 MKWH/yr (increase)
Central Supply Canal (Jeffrey, J1, J2)
Total
+0.1 MKWH/yr (slight increase)
Parameter
Stream Flow
Average Annual Platte River Flow at Grand Island
during Times of Shortage
Hydropower Output
ES-7
Executive Summary
The potential for long term mounding and groundwater table decline was evaluated using the COHYST
model on a relative, and not an absolute basis. Factors such as variations in groundwater pumping from
wells outside of CNPPID or groundwater inflows or outflows from creeks and drains that would intercept
groundwater were ignored for this simplified analysis.
In Scenario 1, after 50 years of pumping to meet the full crop consumptive use demands as well as
recharging the groundwater mound, results from the COHYST model show no regions of groundwater
declines within the CNPPID service area over the 50-year simulation time period.
In Scenario 2, at the end of the 50-year modeling period, the COHYST model did not simulate
groundwater declines in the immediate vicinity of the E-65 canal system, but it did suggest potential long
term declines within the groundwater mound in the vicinity of the eastern Phelps Canal system. The
integrated conjunctive use modeling suggests that some level of recharge will need to occur in the
Phelps Canal service area to maintain the groundwater mound; however, it is possible to manage
groundwater elevations at beneficial levels that will assist with waterlogged conditions.
Scenario 3 used the results of Scenario 1 to evaluate the potential benefits of an additional storage
facility upstream of Grand Island. The analysis was conducted at a very conceptual level using a
spreadsheet tool to simulate the operations of the potential storage facility. The spreadsheet tool
assumed that water would be stored in the facility during months when the results of Scenario 1 showed
stream flow excesses at Grand Island. Water was then released from the facility when flows at Grand
Island were below FWS targets. Facilities with capacities of 40,000 AF and 250,000 AF were assessed
using the spreadsheet tool. On an average annual basis, the 40,000 AF storage facility provided an
additional 14,000 AF of stream flow improvement during times of shortage at Grand Island. The
250,000 AF facility provided an average of approximately 50,000 AF/yr of additional flow during times of
shortage.
Conclusions
This study assessed the potential to use existing infrastructure for recharge, evaluated infrastructure
needed to conduct a conjunctive water management program (i.e. new groundwater wells, additional
recharge facilities, etc.) and estimated the effects and benefits of various conjunctive water
management scenarios. The conclusions of this conceptual-level study indicate that the conjunctive
water management program described in this report could greatly benefit CNPPID, stakeholders in the
central Platte River valley, and the State of Nebraska. The table below summarizes the potential
benefits of the conjunctive water management scenarios.
Summary of Potential Conjunctive Water Management Program Benefits
Parameter
Benefits of Conjunctive Water Management
Average annual Platte River flow at

Grand Island
Increase of 30,000 to 80,000 acre-feet/year

Grand Island during times of shortage
Total Hydropower Generation
(Potentially over 215,000 acre-feet/year with a 250,000 acre-foot

storage facility)
Increase of 0.1 to 13.4 MKWH

(Increased revenues of potentially over $500,000 per year on average)
ES-8
Executive Summary
Several additional conclusions can be drawn from the results of the evaluations, including:
CNPPID irrigators can reliably use the groundwater mound for irrigation supply. By using the
groundwater mound as the primary source of water supply, CNPPID irrigators would be able to irrigate
when needed and not be subject to potential surface water supply issues.
Existing infrastructure can be used for conjunctive water management. The existing canal and lateral
system would be the primary recharge facility in a conjunctive water management program.
Increased hydropower revenues could be realized. OPSTUDY modeling indicates that overall
hydropower production in the central Platte River valley could increase under a conjunctive water
management program.
Lake McConaughy water levels could be managed for greater stability. By relying on the groundwater
mound as another reservoir of irrigation water supply, CNPPID could gain additional flexibility in
managing storage in Lake McConaughy, which could lead to greater stability in water levels.
Water can be provided to help return the Platte River below Lake McConaughy to fully appropriated
conditions. The stream flow benefits derived from a conjunctive water management program would
be very beneficial for returning to fully appropriated status in the Platte River basin.
The PRRIP could benefit significantly from this program. Surface water modeling conducted for this
study suggested that significant stream flow increases could be realized during times of shortage.
Recommendations
The proposed conjunctive water management program warrants more research and collaboration among
parties that might participate in or benefit from the program. Recommendations for future activities to
advance this program are listed below:
Refine the modeling analysis. This study was conducted at a conceptual level and the analysis tools
had several limitations. Refinement of the model would improve the accuracy of estimated results.
Develop operating rules. The modeling analyses conducted for this study were based on several
assumptions regarding how the conjunctive water management program would be operated.
CNPPID, NPPD, the PRRIP, and other stakeholders who could benefit or be impacted by the program
should be engaged and should collaborate to develop and refine program objectives and operating
rules.
Assess current and future infrastructure needs. Additional assessments of needed infrastructure
should be conducted once more refined modeling is performed and operating rules and goals are
developed
Explore legal, environmental, and socioeconomic considerations. Legal, environmental,
socioeconomic and other considerations should be evaluated as the conjunctive water management
program develops
ES-9
Section 1
Introduction and Project

Understanding
Brown and Caldwell evaluated the conceptual-level feasibility of operating the surface water irrigation
system owned and managed by the Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (CNPPID) to
enhance the conjunctive use and overall utilization of surface and groundwater supplies. This report
describes Brown and Caldwells Conjunctive Water Management Conceptual Study (Conceptual Study)
and includes the following topics:
Water management issues and programs in the Platte River basin and potential benefits derived from
this conjunctive water management program (Section 1)
Study objectives and tasks (Section 2)
Assessment of existing and needed infrastructure and its potential use in a conjunctive water
management program (Section 3)
Benefits of conjunctive water management under different operational scenarios (Section 4)
Study conclusions, limitations, and recommendations (Section 5)
1.1 Key Issues in the Central Platte River Valley

Nebraska faces many challenges in stretching its limited water supplies to meet a wide variety of
demands. The Platte River in central Nebraska is a focal point for many of the complex water supply and
demand issues facing the state. Large water demands for irrigation, power production, environmental,
and other uses are sometimes not completely satisfied because of water supply variability and
insufficient water storage and supply facilities to meet demands during drier hydrologic periods. In fact,
environmental demands for Platte River flows are not totally satisfied even during normal hydrologic
periods.
The shortage of water supplies has caused many regulatory and legislative actions in Nebraska over the
last two decades. Several water management programs, including those described in the following
sections, were the result of these actions.
1.1.1 The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

The Platte River is a highly-utilized source of water supply for agricultural, hydropower and other uses,
but it is also critical habitat to threatened and endangered species including the threatened piping
plover and the endangered whooping crane, interior least tern, and the pallid sturgeon. Potential
litigation associated with the protection of these species and the relicensing of Kingsley Dam in the early
1-1
Section 1
Introduction and Project Understanding
1990s drove officials in the Platte River basin states and the federal government to work towards a
cooperative strategy for addressing water supply issues.
In 1997, the Secretary of the Interior and the governors of Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska signed the
Cooperative Agreement for Platte River Research and Other Efforts Relating to Endangered Species
Habitat along the Central Platte River, Nebraska (Cooperative Agreement). The Cooperative Agreement
paved the way for the states and the federal government to develop a program to enhance habitat for
threatened and endangered species in the central Platte River. Through the Cooperative Agreement, the
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP) was developed and began in 2007.
The PRRIP will take an incremental approach to increasing stream flows in the central Platte River,
enhancing habitat for target bird species, and accommodating new water-related activities. In the first
increment of the PRRIP, which will take place from 2007 to 2019, target flow shortages will be reduced
by 130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet (AF) per year by retiming and increasing river flows. To reach this goal,
the PRRIP and participating states have implemented several projects to retime and increase flows, and
they are actively studying and pursuing additional projects.
1.1.2 Over-appropriation above Elm Creek

In 2002, the Nebraska Legislature created the Water Policy Task Force to study issues related to
Nebraskas laws governing surface water and groundwater. The Water Policy Task Force recommended
several actions that were reflected in new water policy legislation, commonly known as LB 962. LB 962
was signed into law in April, 2004 and contained several provisions designed to anticipate and prevent
conflicts between surface and groundwater users.
Several areas in Nebraska were undergoing water-related conflicts at the time the bill was signed. Areas
in conflict were designated by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) as overappropriated, meaning the extent of water development in these areas is not sustainable over the long
term. The Platte River basin above the Kearney Canal diversion near Elm Creek, Nebraska was
designated as over-appropriated. The designation impacted the Twin Platte Natural Resources District,
the North Platte Natural Resources District, the South Platte Natural Resources District and portions of
the Central Platte Natural Resources District and the Tri-Basin Natural Resources District.
LB 962 also included provisions related to fully appropriated areas, annual evaluations of water
supplies and demands, stays on new uses of groundwater and surface water, and the development of
Integrated Surface Water and Groundwater Management Plans (IMPs). The reader is encouraged to
review other references for a full description of the provisions in LB 962.
1.1.3 Development of Integrated Water Management Plans

Natural Resources Districts (NRDs) designated as over-appropriated and NDNR are required by LB 962
to jointly develop an IMP within 3 to 5 years of the designation. Several requirements for IMPs were
described in LB 962 including the following:
Clear goals and objectives with a purpose of sustaining a balance between water uses and water
supplies so that the economic viability, social and environmental health, safety, and welfare of the
river basin, sub-basin, or reach can be achieved and maintained for both the near term and the long
term
One or more of the groundwater controls authorized for adoption by natural resources districts
Groundwater controls authorized by LB 962 included rotational use of groundwater, well spacing
requirements, reductions in groundwater irrigated acreage, installation of measurement devices, and
limits on expansion of irrigated acreage among other controls.
1-2
Section 1
NRDs in the Platte River basin upstream of and including the CPNRD have developed and are
implementing IMPs. In addition, a basin-wide IMP was developed and implemented for overappropriated portions of the Platte River basin. The NRD-specific plans include water management
activities to be taken in both fully and over-appropriated areas. In over-appropriated areas, NRDs are
required to reduce stream flow depletions from groundwater irrigation to levels that occurred prior to
1997 (the year in which the Cooperative Agreement was signed) during the first 10 years of the IMP.
The long term goal of the IMPs is to return over-appropriated areas to fully appropriated or even underappropriated conditions.
1.2 Project Setting and Background

Creative thinking has been and will be needed to meet the requirements of the PRRIP and IMPs
described above. Water managers and water users have been developing innovative projects over the
last decade to meet the goals of the PRRIP and, more recently, IMPs. Many of these projects have
involved conjunctive water management.
1.2.1 General Description of Conjunctive Water Management

Conjunctive water management was defined concisely in Common Waters, Diverging Streams
(Blomquist, et al., 2004) as the following:
Conjunctive water management involves the coordinated use of surface water supplies and
storage with groundwater supplies and storage.
In practical terms, conjunctive water management many times involves using surface water supplies
when they are plentiful during wet periods and using groundwater supplies during drier times. When
available, excess surface water supplies would be captured and infiltrated into the aquifer to replenish
groundwater supplies used to meet demands during drier periods. Using conjunctive management,
more of the overall water supply can be utilized by capturing, retiming, and making better use of excess
supply. Blomquist, et al. (2004) describe the interaction of surface water and groundwater supplies in
conjunctive water management as:
Conjunctive water management can be understood as an effort to use the relative advantages of
surface water and groundwater resources to offset each others shortcomings.
Conjunctive water management is a tool commonly used by water managers and water users in
Nebraska and other western U.S. states. For example, surface water irrigators in western Nebraska
often drill groundwater wells to supplement surface water supplies. In wet years when stream flows are
high, irrigators may rely primarily on their surface water supplies for irrigation. In drier years, irrigators
may rely more on groundwater supplies. Seepage from the surface water distribution system recharges
the aquifer and is the primary mechanism for replenishing groundwater supplies that are used for
irrigation.
Conjunctive water management is currently being evaluated through the Cooperative Hydrology Study
(COHYST) in the central Platte River valley by the NDNR, Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), CNPPID,
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, TPNRD, and CPNRD. The studys objectives are to optimize the
management of surface water and groundwater supplies to deliver greater overall benefits to water
users. The study team is currently developing modeling and other tools that will be used to evaluate
conjunctive water management strategies.
1.2.2 Conjunctive Water Management in Other States

In Colorado, irrigators commonly use managed aquifer recharge programs to divert and infiltrate excess
stream flows to offset stream flow depletions caused by groundwater pumping for irrigation. Water
providers in the Denver metropolitan area are studying ways to share water infrastructure to help reduce
1-3
Section 1
reliance on dwindling groundwater supplies from the Denver Basin Aquifer by sharing surface water
supplies during wet years and potentially recharging the Denver Basin Aquifer.
Other western U.S. states, including California, Arizona, Idaho, etc. frequently use infiltration basins to
bank excess stream flows for later withdrawal for municipal, industrial, and irrigation purposes. In
some instances, irrigators with surface and groundwater supplies have been encouraged to rely solely on
groundwater during dry times so that municipalities can make use of surface water supplies. These are
just a few examples of the ways that conjunctive water management is applied in other states.
Conjunctive water management strategies may differ from state to state depending on laws governing
surface water and groundwater supplies, hydrologic conditions, hydraulic connections between streams
and aquifers, etc. Strategies used in other states may not be directly applicable because of institutional
and hydrologic conditions in Nebraska.
1.2.3 Conjunctive Water Management Applied to CNPPID

1.2.3.1 Overview of the Existing System
CNPPID provides water for a variety of demands including surface water irrigation, hydropower,
groundwater recharge, and recreation. Surface water for irrigation is supplied directly from CNPPID to
approximately 112,000 acres in central Nebraska. CNPPIDs irrigation and hydropower water supply is
stored in Lake McConaughy. In addition, NPPD stores water in Lake McConaughy for irrigation and
hydropower uses.
Water management along the North Platte and Platte Rivers is a complex task and requires daily
coordination among CNPPID, NPPD, and other water managers. Figure 1-1 shows the irrigated lands
served by CNPPID, Lake McConaughy, and several irrigation and water supply facilities located between
Lake McConaughy and the irrigated lands directly served by CNPPID. The following bullets generally
describe how CNPPID water is conveyed from Lake McConaughy to irrigated lands directly served by
CNPPID. NPPD water is conveyed in facilities upstream of and including Jeffrey Reservoir, and flows
passing through various facilities may be a combination of NPPD and CNPPID water.
CNPPID releases from Lake McConaughy can be diverted into NPPDs Sutherland Supply Canal or can
be passed down the North Platte and Platte Rivers.
Water diverted into NPPDs Sutherland Supply Canal is used for cooling at the Gerald Gentleman
Station (NPPDs 1,400 MW coal-fired power plant), recreation, and hydropower (at NPPDs North
Platte Hydro).
NPPDs Sutherland system returns water to the South Platte River just upstream of CNPPIDs TriCounty Supply Canal diversion.
The Tri-County Supply Canal diverts water at the confluence of the North and South Platte Rivers and
delivers water to CNPPIDs three hydropower facilities (the Jeffrey, Johnson No. 1 and Johnson No. 2
hydroplants), several storage reservoirs, and irrigated fields. The larger reservoirs on CNPPIDs canal
system include Jeffrey Reservoir, Johnson Lake, and Elwood Reservoir.
Water can be delivered back to the river after passing through CNPPIDs hydropower facilities via the
Jeffrey and J2 Returns.
Most of the irrigation supplies are delivered to lands served by CNPPID via three canals (the Phelps,
E-65, and E-67 Canals) located at the eastern end of the Tri-County Supply Canal.
1.2.3.2 Current Conjunctive Management in the CNPPID System
CNPPID has been delivering water for irrigation since the early 1940s. Seepage losses regularly occur in
the system of canals and laterals used to distribute surface water. Over the years, the seepage losses
have created a groundwater mound under the irrigated area served by CNPPID. Approximately 75% of
1-4
Section 1
the lands served by CNPPID also have groundwater wells available for irrigation supply. As a result, most
of the water users in CNPPIDs service area are already using both surface and groundwater, and
conjunctive water management is occurring to a certain extent.
Conjunctive management was specifically considered when CNPPID rehabilitated the E-65 Canal system.
The rehabilitated system provides recharge where irrigators partially rely on groundwater, and water is
delivered via lined canals/lateral and pipelines where irrigators rely primarily on surface water.
1.2.3.3 Proposed Enhancements to Conjunctive Water Management at CNPPID
The project described in this report would increase the level of intentional conjunctive water
management at CNPPID. During drier times when streamflows are not as plentiful, the groundwater
mound would be the primary source of irrigation supply for CNPPID irrigators. During wet hydrologic
cycles, the mound would be recharged using available and excess streamflow. The system of canals and
laterals would be used primarily as recharge facilities rather than facilities for irrigation water delivery.
CNPPID irrigators would need groundwater wells so that they could access the groundwater mound and
the recharge delivered through the canal system.
The potential benefits of these actions are described below:
CNPPID irrigators would not be constrained by surface water delivery schedules or shortages of
surface water supply.
By giving more CNPPID irrigators access to the groundwater mound, surface water deliveries could be
curtailed during dry times, and surface water that would have been delivered for irrigation could be
left in or returned to the river through the J2 or Jeffrey returns to help meet the goals of the PRRIP
and the IMPs.
From an irrigation supply perspective, Lake McConaughy could be operated at a lower elevation if
storage in the groundwater mound can be utilized by CNPPID irrigators during dry times. The
increased available storage space in Lake McConaughy could then be used to capture and manage
more excess streamflow during wet or flooding conditions.
Water levels in Lake McConaughy could be maintained at a more stable level, which would offer
benefits to recreational users of the lake and shoreline.
Water could be diverted into the canal and lateral system for recharge purposes when flows are
available and not on a schedule dictated by crop demands, leading to more operational flexibility.
CNPPID diverts and delivers large volumes of water on an annual basis. If CNPPID irrigators could
rely on the groundwater mound and deliveries of surface water could be curtailed during dry times
when the Platte River is below target flows, significant flow improvements could be realized and the
goals of the PRRIP and IMPs could be greatly advanced, if not achieved.
1-5
Section 2
Study Objectives and Tasks

The overall goal of this study was to understand, from a technical perspective, the conceptual-level
feasibility and potential benefits of enhancing conjunctive water management in CNPPIDs service area.
For the purposes of the study, the overall goal was broken down into several study objectives. The study
was conducted at a conceptual level and sought to provide preliminary answers to some basic questions
regarding how CNPPID operations could be altered to enhance conjunctive water management. The
study objectives were as follows:
Investigate the conceptual-level feasibility of shifting the operating objectives for the canal and lateral
system to providing recharge rather than direct deliveries of surface water for irrigation.
Understand the potential effects of enhanced conjunctive water management on hydropower
production with a goal of maintaining or increasing hydropower above current levels.
Estimate potential Platte River flow increases resulting from conjunctive water management that
would help Nebraska meet the goals of the PRRIP and get from over-appropriated to fully
appropriated in the Platte River basin.
Identify potential recreational and flood control benefits at Lake McConaughy resulting from
conjunctive water management.
Estimate non-beneficial consumptive use savings that could be achieved.
To meet the study objectives, the following tasks were conducted. The assumptions used to carry out
these tasks, the approach for each task, and the results are described in subsequent sections of the
report.
Identify lands without irrigation wells. Irrigators will need to be able to access the groundwater
mound and the recharge provided through the system of canals and laterals if direct deliveries of
surface water for irrigation no longer occur. In this task, lands without irrigation wells and the number
of new wells needed to give CNPPID irrigators access to the groundwater mound were estimated.
Identify areas with inadequate aquifer. Conjunctive water management, in this application, will rely
on aquifer storage to supply irrigation needs during dry times. Aquifer properties and other
information were reviewed to identify areas within CNPPIDs service area where hydrogeologic
conditions would not support conjunctive water management.
Assess the existing delivery systems ability to recharge. The system of canals and laterals will be an
important mechanism for providing recharge in a conjunctive water management program. In this
task, historical amounts of seepage, the density of the canal/lateral network, depth to groundwater,
and other factors were considered to assess the recharge capabilities of the existing delivery system
and the need for additional facilities to enhance recharge.
Develop a water budget. The proposed conjunctive water management program will need to be
sustainable in its use of the groundwater mound and in maintaining the mounds longevity, providing
2-1
Section 2
adequate supplies of irrigation supply through recharge, etc. A water budget was developed to
understand crop water needs, historical conveyance seepage losses, on-farm losses, and other
components and to serve as a guide in assessing the sustainability of different water management
scenarios.
Assess the effects and benefits of conjunctive water management. Three scenarios of conjunctive
water management were developed and conceptually applied to CNPPIDs irrigation delivery system.
Surface water and groundwater modeling tools were used to assess the potential effects and benefits
of conjunctive water management scenarios to the following factors:
2-2
Study Objectives and Tasks
Surface water flows and storage

Fish and Wildlife Service target flows and instream flow rights
Hydropower production
Groundwater levels
Evaporation from Lake McConaughy
Other non-beneficial consumptive use
Section 3

Several of the study tasks described in Section 2 were developed to investigate the feasibility of using
existing facilities and the aquifer in a conjunctive water management program and needed
improvements to existing facilities. Section 3 describes the assumptions, approach, and results of these
tasks.
3.1 Assessment of Access to the Groundwater Mound

Much of CNPPIDs service area has access to groundwater for irrigation. Irrigators with existing
groundwater wells already practice some level of conjunctive water management and would readily be
able to participate in the conjunctive water management program described in this report. However,
CNPPIDs service area includes fields that do not have irrigation wells, and these lands would need new
irrigation wells to allow participation in a conjunctive water management program. It should be noted
that the assessment assumed that irrigators under the E-67 Canal system would not participate in the
conjunctive water management program (see Section 4.2 for further explanation). As a result, lands
under the E-67 Canal system were not included in the assessment of access to the groundwater mound.
A conceptual-level assessment was conducted using GIS to estimate the number and size of fields that
would need new irrigation wells. From this assessment, the number of new irrigation wells necessary for
the conjunctive water management program was estimated.
3.1.1 Approach and Assumptions

The approach for this task relied on maps of several features including irrigated lands, surface water
irrigated lands and registered, active irrigation wells. GIS was used to overlay the mapping layers and to
identify potential fields that would need irrigation wells. The mapped data used for the assessment is
described below:
Irrigated lands: The University of Nebraskas Center for Advanced Land Management Information
Technologies (CALMIT) developed maps of irrigated lands reflecting 2005 conditions for COHYST. The
map layers were developed using satellite imagery and other data. Boundaries of irrigated parcels in
the CALMIT data sets more closely match the actual shape of irrigated parcels than the maps of
surface water irrigated lands described below. Two maps of irrigated lands were developed by
CALMIT one for center pivots and one for other irrigation (irrigated lands that do no have center
pivots). For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the 2005 mapping of irrigated parcels is
reflective of current conditions.
Surface water irrigated lands: Lands irrigated with surface water were identified and mapped during
the development of groundwater modeling tools for COHYST. The map layer shows the location of
parcels irrigated with surface water as well as the water supplier and the area of each parcel. Lands
3-1
Section 3
receiving CNPPID irrigation water are depicted in the maps as squares or rectangular shaped areas
that generally correspond to the shape and location of the irrigated parcel.
Irrigation wells: The NDNR maintains databases and GIS maps of registered wells. The GIS maps
included data describing the use of the well, its status (i.e. active, inactive, etc.) and other data.
Several analysis steps were taken to estimate the number of wells necessary to provide CNPPID
irrigators access to the groundwater mound. The steps are described below:
1. The maps of center pivots and other irrigation from CALMIT were overlaid on the map of surface water
irrigated lands. Parcels of land were then identified that were irrigated with center pivots and other
irrigation in 2005 and can also receive surface water from CNPPID. The resulting map layer showed
CNPPID surface water irrigated parcels with locations and shapes that were more reflective of actual
conditions than the original map coverage of surface water irrigated lands.
2. A map of registered, active irrigation wells was overlaid on the map resulting from step 1 above.
Irrigated parcels with and without irrigation wells that receive CNPPID surface water supplies were
identified in this step.
3. The number of wells necessary for the conjunctive water management program was estimated using
the map developed in step 2 showing lands without irrigation wells that receive CNPPID surface water
supplies. The number of wells was estimated using the following assumptions:
Parcels of land less than 40 acres would not need an irrigation well. The mapping process
identified numerous, small parcels of land that receive surface water from CNPPID and do not
have an irrigation well. For example, center pivot corners were frequently identified initially as
small parcels of land that would need an irrigation well. It was assumed that center pivot
corners could be irrigated using the irrigation well supplying the center pivot. For other small
parcels of land, it was assumed that irrigation water could potentially be supplied from other
nearby wells and that it might not be economical to install irrigation wells on very small parcels.
Irrigated lands with center pivots but no groundwater supply would need one well to supply the
center pivot regardless of the parcel size.
Lands needing wells that are not irrigated with center pivots and are greater than 40 acres
would require one well for every incremental portion of land equal to or less than 80 acres. The
following are examples of how this was applied:
3-2
A 60-acre irrigated field without groundwater supply would need one irrigation well.
A 100-acre irrigated field without groundwater supply would need two irrigation wells.
A 180-acre irrigated field without groundwater supply would need three irrigation wells.
A 180-acre irrigated field with one existing irrigation well would need two additional irrigation
wells.
Some parcels in the map of lands with surface water irrigation supplies did not correspond to
irrigated lands in 2005 mapped by CALMIT. It was assumed that these lands were not irrigated
in 2005 but that they were irrigated in the past and might be irrigated in the future. Lands in
this category without irrigation wells were identified, and the number of irrigation wells needed
was estimated using the assumptions described above.
As described previously irrigators that receive their supply from the E-67 system would likely
not participate in the conjunctive water management program and would not require irrigation
wells. Lack of adequate groundwater supply led to the construction of the E-67 system in
1954, and it was assumed that hydrogeologic conditions in the area around the E-67 system
would not support enhanced conjunctive water management.
Section 3
The graphic to the right illustrates the analysis

process described above. The light green and
light blue parcels are 2005 irrigated areas
mapped by CALMIT. The gray rectangular
parcels are the lands receiving irrigation water
from CNPPID that were mapped as part of the
COHYST study. The dots represent active
registered irrigation wells. Several parcels are
highlighted in the graphic and their different
colors depict how the parcels would have been
categorized in the analysis. The parcels are
described below:
The dark green parcel was within the
boundary of CNPPID irrigated lands, is irrigated with a center pivot, and has an active irrigation well at
its center. This parcel would have been categorized as land that receives irrigation water from
CNPPID and has an irrigation well already.
The light blue parcel was within the boundary of CNPPID irrigated lands, is irrigated with a center
pivot, but no irrigation well is located on the parcel. This parcel would have been categorized as land
that receives irrigation water from CNPPID and needs one irrigation well to access the groundwater
mound to supply the center pivot.
The dark blue parcel was within the boundary of CNPPID irrigated lands, is irrigated with something
other than a center pivot (i.e. gated pipe or other system), and there are no active irrigation wells
located on this parcel. This parcel would have been categorized as needing three irrigation wells (the
parcel is greater than 160 acres) to access the groundwater mound for irrigation supply.
The red parcels were within or touching the boundary of CNPPID irrigated lands and irrigation wells
are not located on the parcels. Each of the four red parcels is less than 40 acres, and it was
assumed that a new irrigation well would not be needed to supply irrigation water to the parcels.
3.1.2 Results
Using the process described in Section 3.1.1, the number of wells needed to provide groundwater to
CNPPID irrigators that are wholly dependent on surface water was estimated to be approximately 450
wells. Figure 3-1 shows CNPPID irrigated lands that currently have irrigation wells and lands that need
irrigation wells along with the number of wells needed on each parcel. The figure shows that lands
needing irrigation wells are fairly evenly distributed throughout CNPPIDs service area.
The assessment also showed that approximately 75% of CNPPID lands already have irrigation wells,
which is consistent with recent reports from CNPPID.
It should be noted that this assessment was conducted at a conceptual level and is subject to the
following assumptions and limitations:
Land ownership was not considered. It is possible that, for example, an 80-acre parcel (as defined by
the CALMIT mapping) needing irrigation wells may be actually be two separate fields owned by two
land owners. It is likely that the two land owners would each install one well on their respective fields
(i.e. two wells would be needed to irrigate the 80 acres). The process used for the assessment,
however, would have suggested one well is needed. Conversely, a land owner with a 90-acre parcel
would potentially only need one well to irrigate their land, but the assessment would have shown that
two wells are needed.
The assessment assumes that the mapping of 2005 irrigated lands is reflective of current conditions.
Existing groundwater wells can provide adequate irrigation supply to the lands they serve.
3-3
Section 3
3.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions of the Aquifer

The ability of the regional aquifer to yield suitable quantities of water as well as absorb significant
recharge in the vicinity of the CNPPID service area was evaluated in a qualitative manner using the
existing distribution of groundwater wells and hydraulic parameter distribution from the COHYST
groundwater model.
The present day distribution of irrigated land with access to groundwater wells (green polygons on Figure
3-1) suggests that significant groundwater resources are currently being utilized within the CNPPID
service area. Additionally, the surrounding agricultural lands within a 5 mile buffer of the CNPPID service
area are served by an extensive distribution of groundwater wells. The large number and spatial
distribution of groundwater production wells supports the conclusion that the regional aquifer is viable
and capable of supporting pumping for irrigation purposes. The only exception to this conclusion is the
area in the immediate vicinity of the E-67 canal system, which has historically experienced poor
hydrogeologic conditions (CNPPID, 2011).
Likewise, the distribution of hydraulic parameters from the COHYST model suggests that significant
groundwater resources are available throughout the CNPPID service area, as well as immediately
adjacent to their serviced lands. Calibrated hydraulic conductivity values within and adjacent the
CNPPID service area range from 5 to 240 feet/day (Peterson, 2007), values indicative of a productive
aquifer system capable of producing adequate water supply for irrigation. Additionally, given the degree
of groundwater rise within the vicinity of the CNPPID service area over the past 50 years, it is likely that
groundwater reserves within and adjacent to the CNPPID service area have been supported not only by
suitable hydraulic aquifer conditions, but also a regular supply of groundwater recharge. This confluence
of favorable conditions strongly supports that the hydrogeologic conditions of the Ogallala aquifer are
adequate for continued and additional development as a source of irrigation water supply as well as a
receptor for future planned recharge and replenishment efforts. In areas closer to the Platte River,
depths to the water table are more shallow and although hydraulic conductivity values are generally
higher, the small volume of storage potential in the vadose zone will limit recharge potential in these
areas and favor recharge activities further from the river. This factor was considered in the recharge
strategies listed below in Section 3.3.3.
3.3 Assessment of Infrastructure

For the conjunctive management scenarios considered during this study, existing infrastructure was
assumed to be in place and usable for groundwater recharge purposes. Estimates regarding the
magnitudes and rates of groundwater recharge are detailed below.
3.3.1 Historical Losses from CNPPID Canals and Laterals

A high-level analysis of historical delivery losses from CNPPID canals and laterals was conducted to
derive a general understanding of annual and monthly magnitudes of losses.
As a part of the COHYST study, CNPPID compiled records of diversions of water into the irrigation
distribution system and deliveries of water to farms. The difference between diversions and deliveries
are losses from evaporation and seepage. In general, seepage losses greatly exceed evaporative losses
in unlined surface water distribution systems. Historical evaporative losses in the canals and laterals
were not specifically estimated for the purposes of this study. As a result, seepage loss estimates
presented in this section may be slightly overstated.
Annual estimates of seepage loss and delivery efficiency were developed based on data from CNPPID for
the 1954 to 2007 time period. Figure 3-2 shows the results of the estimates and depicts an increasing
3-4
Section 3
trend in delivery efficiency. Overall system losses averaged approximately 140,000 AF per year from
1954 to 2007, but in recent time periods (after the early 1980s), annual delivery losses have been in
the range of 100,000 to 120,000 AF per year. Again, the great majority of these losses are due to
seepage. The delivery loss estimates show that the existing canal and lateral system have a large
capacity to provide recharge to the aquifer.
Average monthly delivery losses were also estimated. The distribution of monthly delivery losses were
proportioned based on the historical distribution of monthly diversions of water into the irrigation system.
Historical monthly diversions into the Phelps, E-65, and E-67 systems were obtained from OPSTUDY
(OPSTUDY is described in subsequent sections of this report). Monthly estimates of delivery losses are
shown in Figure 3-3. The figure shows average monthly losses at their maximum in July and August at
approximately 40,000 AF per month.
A more rigorous assessment of monthly losses that incorporates seasonal changes in loss rates may
yield slightly different results and may show that monthly loss rates are higher early in the irrigation
season as the canal and lateral system is charging and lower later in the irrigation season. The highlevel analysis conducted was sufficient to meet the purpose of this analysis and provided a general
understanding of monthly delivery losses.
3.3.2 Spatial Distribution of Groundwater Recharge from Canals

For the purposes of estimating the impact of recharge from existing canals and infrastructure, a radial
influence of 1 mile was assumed for potential hydraulic response, or mounding, around open canals
and laterals within the CNPPID service area (Figure 3-4). In other words, it was assumed that, over the
short term, aquifer levels within 1 mile of a canal or lateral would increase due to seepage when water is
being delivered through the canal or lateral. Over the long term, the local aquifer responses translate
into more regional aquifer responses. It should be noted that buried laterals were not included in this
assessment. Additional modeling and calculations are required to further refine the lateral distance and
magnitude of mounding adjacent to existing CNPPID infrastructure; however, this preliminary estimate
provides a likely extent of mounding potential relative to existing linear recharge sources; given the
magnitude of canal leakage estimates presented in Section 3.3.1. Furthermore, the extent of the
assumed 1-mile buffer allows for the consideration of various recharge strategies that would effectively
augment groundwater supplies within the CNPPID service area given the current distribution of irrigation
infrastructure.
In general, the mapping-based assessment described above supports the conclusion that the network of
existing CNPPID canals and laterals are well distributed throughout the CNPPID service area and could
provide recharge to most suitable locations. In areas where open canals and laterals do not currently
exist, it is possible that additional, engineered recharge facilities may need to be constructed. Additional
groundwater modeling would be useful in further assessing the need for and efficacy of additional
recharge facilities.
3.3.3 Recharge Strategies

Given the estimates of seepage loss from the existing canals and laterals from the 1954 to the 2007
time period and the assumed radius of influence of hydraulic response, or mounding, from future
potential groundwater recharge, three classes of groundwater recharge were identified as potential
strategies for future, conjunctive management scenarios (Figure 3-4). These strategies are listed and
described below:
Distributed Recharge, which refers to the use of existing canals, laterals, and field application to
spread a given volume of groundwater recharge over a large areal extent.
3-5
Section 3
Localized Recharge, which refers to the use of engineered, rapid infiltration basins and
underground injection wells to emplace groundwater recharge in high volumes in localized
areas.
Recharge and Recovery, which refers to managed recharge and groundwater extraction using
existing canal and lateral infrastructure and current as well as future pumping wells to maintain
an optimal depth to groundwater for crops as well as irrigation wells.
As illustrated on Figure 3-4, three distinct areas of recharge strategies have been identified given the
assessment criteria of 1) current depths to groundwater and proximity to perennial drainages associated
with the Platte River, 2) proximity of existing recharge infrastructure, and 3) future, estimated mounding
potential associated with existing canals and laterals. However, these recharge strategies may be
applied where appropriate throughout the CNPPID service area and adjacent region depending upon
land availability, localized hydrogeologic conditions, and groundwater demands.
Along the E-65 canal, within the western third of the CNPPID service area, where depths to groundwater
and associated, underground water storage potential are greater than those immediately adjacent to the
Platte River, distributed and localized recharge are both viable options for conjunctive water
management.
Immediately south of the central portion of the CNPPID service area, between the E-65 and eastern
extent of the Phelps canal is an area that may be suitable for higher volume, localized groundwater
recharge operations. This area has greater depths to groundwater and less influence from existing canal
and lateral recharge infrastructure and has a greater distance from the Platte River, suggesting that this
region would be a suitable area to store recharged groundwater that would augment aquifer reserves in
both the CNPPID service area as well as the portion of aquifer extending southwards to the Republican
River basin.
The eastern portion of the CNPPID service area served by the Phelps canal is suitable for localized
groundwater recharge and recovery operations. Aquifer conditions in this area are characterized by
shallower depths to the water table and are more susceptible to negative impacts to agricultural fields
from high water tables as well as seepage into subsurface domestic structures. A managed recharge
and extraction regime in this area would not only help optimize conjunctive water management, but
could also improve waterlogged conditions (to the extent that they exist) in the eastern extent of the
CNPPID service area via managed groundwater extraction and management of seasonal water table
elevations. This beneficial use of the current and future groundwater mound would not only provide
additional water for irrigation, but also reduce the potential for future property damage from high water
tables, associated seepage, and flooding.
Although no optimization procedures were performed to estimate a more precise distribution of
appropriate recharge strategies for the various regions of the CNPPID service area, all three recharge
strategies would be appropriate for application within portions of the study area and all may be
beneficial for both water supply as well as protection of property from seepage and damage from
periodic, elevated water tables. Given these qualitative conclusions, additional quantitative, modeling
analyses would be useful for estimating the relative beneficial impact of distributed recharge options in a
series of bookend scenarios, which reflect end member groundwater recharge options as discussed in
Section 4.3. Optimization of these various recharge scenarios, given local hydrogeologic conditions and
land use patterns, will likely improve upon the volume of available water supply for river flow and
irrigation as well as increase the reliability of agricultural water supplies. However, such optimization
analyses were not performed as part of this conceptual-level study.
3-6
Section 3
3.4 Water Budget Development

A water budget was developed for CNPPIDs system as a guideline for creating and evaluating
conjunctive water management scenarios. The water budget also served as a useful tool for
understanding the relative magnitude of water volumes diverted, returned, seeped, and consumed.
Data for the water budget was obtained from NDNR gaging records, CNPPID records of diversions into
the irrigation system and on-farm deliveries, and estimates of net irrigation requirements (NIR) derived
using output from the CROPSIM model.
3.4.1 Process for Estimating Net Irrigation Requirement

Estimates of crop consumptive use, NIR, and other on-farm water budget components were based on
existing CROPSIM model output developed for the COHYST modeling project. CROPSIM used climate
data from weather stations across the COHYST modeling area to calculate consumptive use, NIR, etc. for
various types of crops and vegetation growing on various types of soils. For development of the water
budget, output from the CROPSIM model was applied to lands receiving surface water supplies from
CNPPID to estimate the NIR in CNPPIDs service area.
CROPSIM output using climatic data from the Gothenburg, Holdrege, Medicine Creek Dam, Minden, and
North Platte WSO ARP weather stations was used in the estimate of NIR for CNPPIDs service area.
CROPSIM output for the various weather stations was applied to different parts of CNPPIDs service area
depending on the location of each field relative to the nearest weather station.
Cropping patterns in CNPPIDs service area were obtained from GIS-based land use mapping developed
by CALMIT reflecting 2005 conditions. The 2005 CALMIT land use mapping covers the entire state of
Nebraska and describes land uses based on 25 categories that include a variety of irrigated and dryland
crops, grasslands, urban areas, open water, etc. The 2005 CALMIT land use mapping was assumed to
represent current land use conditions.
GIS was used to combine CALMIT mapping of 2005 land use, weather station locations, CNPPID irrigated
fields, and maps of soil properties. Each of these mapping coverages were intersected in GIS, resulting
in a mapping coverage that included polygons of fields in CNPPIDs service area with attributes
describing specific soil types, land uses, and coverage of weather stations. For each of these polygons,
annual NIR amounts could be obtained in the CROPSIM output based on the soil type, land use, and
weather station used by CROPSIM. The extraction of CROPSIM output for each individual polygon was
conducted using queries of GIS and CROPSIM output databases. Annual NIR based on 2005 land uses
was estimated by multiplying annual NIR amounts for each polygon within CNPPIDs service area (in
terms of inches per acre) by the land area for each polygon, resulting in an annual NIR volume for each
polygon. The NIR volumes calculated for each polygon were summed on an annual basis for all of the
polygons receiving CNPPID irrigation water. The annual NIR volumes calculated using this process
represent NIR relative to 2005 land uses projected across historical climatic records.
3.4.2 Water Budget Results

Data describing the components of the water budget were compiled from the sources described above
and were summarized based on annual averages. The data sources had varying time ranges over which
data were available. Components of the water budget were averaged beginning in 1954 (the first year of
deliveries under the E-67 system) and ending in the last year for which data was obtained. Table 3-1
summarizes the water budget and shows the data source and timeframe over which averages were
calculated for each water budget component. Water budget data were estimated on a system-wide
basis and for the irrigation system.
3-7
Section 3
Table 3-1. Water Budget for CNPPID System

Component
Irrigation System
System-Wide
Total Annual Diversions into the Tri-County

Supply Canal
Amount
(AF/year)
Data Source
Timeframe
1,074,000 NDNR gage 142000
1954-2008
47,000 NDNR gage 143000
1954-2008
Returns through J-2
547,000 NDNR gage 144000
1954-2008
Seepage and Lake Evaporation Prior to

Delivery to Irrigation System
257,000 Calculated remainder
1954-2007
1954-2007
Seepage Loss in Canals and Laterals
1954-2007
Historical CNPPID On-farm Irrigation

Deliveries
1954-2007
Net Irrigation Requirement
71,000
Returns through Jeffrey
Processed CROPSIM
output
1954-2005
The data in Table 3-1 show the following:

Approximately 55% of the water diverted at the Tri-County Supply Canal dam is returned to the Platte
River through the Jeffrey and J-2 Returns.
The water provided to the system of canals and laterals (235,000 AF/yr) is approximately 22% of
diversions into the Tri-County Supply Canal.
The efficiency of the irrigation delivery system (on-farm deliveries divided by the amount provided to
the irrigation system) is approximately 41% based on long term averages. However, the efficiency
has improved over time as shown in Figure 3-2.
The irrigated area under CNPPID is approximately 112,000 acres, but it has fluctuated somewhat
over the years (the CNPPID website mentions that irrigated acreage grew to 123,000 acres at one
point in its history). Water budget components reduced to a per-acre basis (assuming 112,000
acres) are shown below. Because historical acreage has fluctuated, the per-acre estimates are not
exact, but they should be generally reflective of actual amounts.
Amount provided to the irrigation system: 25 inches/acre

Historical CNPPID on-farm irrigation deliveries: 10 inches/acre
Net irrigation requirement: 8 inches/acre
3-8
On-farm irrigation technologies in the CNPPID service area include a mixture of center pivots and
furrow-based systems (i.e. gated pipe, etc.). Overall application efficiency for furrow based systems
typically ranges from 50 to 90 percent, and center pivots average 75 to 95 percent (Howell, 2003).
Actual on-farm efficiencies depend on soil type, topography, irrigation amounts, specific types of
irrigation equipment, etc. Actual application efficiencies for CNPPID farms were not estimated as a
part of this study. For illustrative purposes, assuming a 70 percent overall application efficiency
(which accounts for both furrow-based and center pivot irrigation systems), the amount of water
provided to crops for consumption would average approximately 68,000 AF/yr based on annual onfarm deliveries of 97,000 AF. Water that was delivered to the farm but was not available to crops ran
off the end of fields, percolated below the root zone, or was lost via other system inefficiencies. The
Section 3
amount of water provided to crops for consumption (68,000 AF/yr) is very similar to, but slightly less
than the net irrigation requirement shown in Table 3-1 estimated using CROPSIM output.
The following is a summary of the fate of water that is diverted into the CNPPID system at the TriCounty Supply Canal Dam. Figure 3-5 illustrates the information below.
Approximately 55% of diversions are returned to the Platte River through the Jeffrey and J2
returns.
Approximately 24% of diversions seep into the aquifer or evaporate prior to reaching the irrigation
canals and laterals.
Approximately 15% of diversions seep into the aquifer or evaporate while being conveyed in
irrigation canals/laterals or is not consumed on-farm because of irrigation inefficiencies.
Approximately 6% of diversions are consumed by crops.
3-9
Section 4
Assessment of Effects and Benefits

of Conjunctive Water Management
A conceptual-level assessment of the potential effects and benefits of various conjunctive water
management scenarios was conducted using available surface and groundwater modeling tools. The
assessment relied on existing modeling tools that have previously been applied in the central Platte
River valley to evaluate various surface water and groundwater related issues and programs. The
surface water and groundwater modeling tools used for the study were not directly linked (i.e. changes in
surface water management are not automatically input and analyzed by a groundwater modeling tool).
An integrated surface water and groundwater modeling tool is currently being developed as a part of the
COHYST project. The integrated model will use CROPSIM, MODFLOW (as applied in the COHYST
groundwater modeling project), and Stella to dynamically assess the entire water budget in evaluating
conjunctive water management scenarios in the central Platte River valley. Once developed, this tool
would likely be ideal for evaluating the conjunctive water management program described in this report.
However, the model was not available as of the date of this report; thus, a series of peer reviewed and
accepted modeling tools were used to estimate the benefits and relative effects of various conjunctive
water management practices.
4.1 Modeling Tools

Individual surface water and groundwater modeling tools were used to assess the effects and benefits of
the conjunctive water management program described in this report. The surface water modeling was
conducted using OPSTUDY, and the groundwater modeling was done using the Eastern Model Unit of the
COHYST groundwater model (a MODFLOW flow model). The models, modeling assumptions, and
modeling limitations are described in the following sections.
4.1.1 OPSTUDY
OPSTUDY is a surface water modeling software package developed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. It
has been applied in the central Platte River valley on several occasions to evaluate water management
programs and their effects on Lake McConaughy and flows in the Platte River. The model has been
modified several times in the past to evaluate different water management scenarios.
OPSTUDY functions as a surface water accounting model that can be used to evaluate diversions and
returns to the Platte River system and account for gains, losses, and stream flows. The model is
bounded on the upstream side at Lewellen, Nebraska on the North Platte River and Julesburg, Colorado
on the South Platte River. The downstream boundary is Duncan, Nebraska. Central Platte River valley
surface water management protocols and facilities are included in the OPSTUDY model, which allows the
4-1
Section 4
Assessment of Effects and Benefits of Conjunctive Water Management
user to evaluate river flows, irrigation diversions, hydropower generation, reservoir storage amounts and
releases, etc. The model accounts for stream flow gains in the Platte River using historical, static
estimates. However, because OPTUDY is a surface water model, it cannot dynamically modify stream
flow gains based on groundwater management activities. For the purposes of this study, OPSTUDY was
run on a monthly time step.
4.1.1.1 Modifications to OPSTUDY
The version of OPSTUDY used for this study was based on Central Platte River OPSTUDY model (CPR
Model) developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
concerning the PRRIP. The CPR Model was used during the EIS study to evaluate water management
alternatives and their effects on stream flows and diversions overlaid on 1947 through 1994 climatic
conditions. The modeling alternatives were compared to a baseline modeling run or Present
Conditions model that was intended to reflect pre-PRRIP operating criteria and demands in the central
Platte River system simulated using 1947 to 1994 hydrologic conditions (PRRIP, 2006). The Present
Conditions version of the CPR Model was used for the purposes of this study.
The modeling time period of the Present Conditions model was altered to reflect 1952 to 2002
conditions. Model and resource limitations prevented the expansion of the modeling time period beyond
50 years. The year 1952 was chosen as the starting point for the model to capture the drought of the
1950s. The drought of the early 2000s was not captured in the modeling efforts for this study due to
model and resource limitations, but Brown and Caldwell recommends that future efforts extend the
modeling time period to present day so that the effects of the drought on conjunctive water management
scenarios can be evaluated. In addition, because the modeling period did not capture the full cycle of
the early 2000s drought, modeling results were evaluated over the 1952 to 2001 timeframe (2002 was
the first year of the early 2000s drought).
To extend time period of the Present Conditions model, monthly diversion demands, reach gains, and
stream inflows were obtained from a version of OPSTUDY representing historical conditions from 1931
to 2002. The historical data were used to extend the Present Conditions model to include the years
1995 through 2002. The extended Present Conditions model served as a baseline model run against
which conjunctive water management scenarios were evaluated. To avoid confusion with the CPR
Present Conditions Model, the baseline model used for this study will hereinafter be referred to as the
Baseline Conditions model.
4.1.1.2 Description of OPSTUDY Modeling Process
Because resources were limited for this study and it was conducted at a conceptual level, OPSTUDY was
used in way that did not require significant changes to the model but that would approximate the effects
and benefits of conjunctive water management. The OPSTUDY modeling framework consists of model
code for conducting water accounting, estimating hydropower production, etc. and input data files that
provide monthly diversion demands, river gains, and stream inflows. The OPSTUDY model code was not
altered for this study. Instead, diversion demands in the data input files were changed to simulate
conjunctive management scenarios.
CNPPID irrigation demands and Kearney Canal hydropower demands were the primary inputs that were
modified to simulate conjunctive water management. The demands were increased or decreased based
on stream flows at Grand Island and storage in Lake McConaughy. CNPPID irrigation demands were
based on the provision of water for recharge and other uses. Several assumptions were made in
developing CNPPID diversion demands for recharge, and they are described in Section 4.2 of this report.
Kearney Canal hydropower demands are non-consumptive and were used to draw releases from Lake
McConaughy. The following describes how these demands were used to simulate conjunctive water
management during dry, normal, and wet hydrologic cycles:
4-2
Section 4
Dry: During drier hydrologic periods, CNPPID irrigation demands were partially or greatly reduced to
either maintain storage in Lake McConaughy or provide additional stream flow at Grand Island.
During drier hydrologic cycles, the groundwater mound was the primary source of water supply to
CNPPID irrigators. Kearney Canal hydropower demands were increased to draw some or all of the
savings from reduced irrigation demands or accumulated storage out of Lake McConaughy to boost
stream flow.
Normal: During normal years, CNPPID irrigation demands were based on yearly crop consumptive
use and canal/lateral losses. In normal years, the objective of recharge operations was to simply
maintain the groundwater mound. If stream flows at Grand Island were below FWS targets, Kearney
Canal hydropower demands may have been increased to draw storage from Lake McConaughy to
increase stream flow at Grand Island. However, storage releases may have been limited if storage
levels in Lake McConaughy were low.
Wet: During wet hydrologic cycles, irrigation demands were increased to use excess stream flow to
recharge and build up the groundwater mound.
Modeling of conjunctive water management scenarios was conducted by making multiple OPSTUDY
runs. In any particular year, storage amounts in Lake McConaughy depend on releases and storage in
previous years. Because of this, successive model runs focused on balancing Lake McConaughy
storage, diversions to recharge, and boosting stream flows in earlier time periods with the focus
progressing to later time periods with each model run. In each successive model run, CNPPID diversion
demands and Kearney Canal hydropower demands were altered based on recharge needs, storage
conditions in Lake McConaughy, and stream flow shortages.
4.1.2 COHYST
The COHYST study began in 1998 with the objective of developing hydrologic databases, analyses,
models, and other information that would assist Nebraska in the PRRIP and in developing water policy.
COHYST will provide tools to better understand surface and groundwater resources and connections and
the effects of water management activities.
The COHYST modeling area stretches from the Republican River/Frenchman Creek on the south to the
Loup and South Loup Rivers and a groundwater divide on the north. In the east, the COHYST modeling
area ends near Columbus, Nebraska and the western boundary roughly corresponds to the Colorado and
Wyoming statelines.
Groundwater flow modeling in COHYST is conducted with MODFLOW. Often the term COHYST model
refers to the MODFLOW groundwater model developed during the COHYST study. The term COHYST
model will be used in this report to refer to the Eastern Model Unit of the Nebraska COHYST
groundwater model, which encompasses the entirety of the project study area.
The COHYST model was developed and calibrated over a period of several years, and it has been used
for numerous groundwater analyses, assessments of groundwater pumping and depletions to surface
flow, etc. The hydrologic databases developed through the COHYST study have been useful tools in
evaluating hydrologic issues in the Platte River valley.
4.1.2.1 Integration of groundwater modeling.
The Eastern Model Unit of the COHYST model encompasses the study area as well as the whole of the
CNPPID service area and was used as the groundwater model framework for assessing changes in
aquifer reserves given the conjunctive management water scenarios discussed below. Additionally,
consumptive water demands, river diversions, and availability of water for groundwater recharge
determined from the OPSTUDY simulations were directly applied to the groundwater inflow and outflow
stresses for the Eastern Model Unit of the COHYST model. Pumping within the COHYST model was
4-3
Section 4
based upon net irrigation requirements for lands within the CNPPID service area under the E-65 and
Phelps Canals using crop water demand estimates from CROPSIM modeling (the pumping estimates
assume that all irrigators under these canals will use groundwater recharge as their source of irrigation
supply and that irrigation needs will be fully satisfied). Groundwater recharge was dependent on the
surface water supplies available for diversion within a given year based upon Platte River flows, Lake
McConaughy storage, and model solutions provided by OPSTUDY (see discussion in Section 4.1.1.2).
Pumping and recharge amounts were input into COHYST based on annual stress periods. For all
modeled conjunctive use scenarios groundwater pumping was evenly distributed throughout the CNPPID
service area (excluding the E-67 area) at a total magnitude suitable for meeting the full consumptive
crop requirement for the CNPPID service area. Groundwater recharge was applied to groundwater model
cells that contained the E-65 and Phelps canals and laterals. For model scenarios where recharge was
applied along both the E-65 and Phelps canal systems; approximately two-thirds of the total volume of
available annual recharge was applied along the E-65 canals and laterals, and approximately half that
total volume was applied along the total length of the Phelps canal system. This division of recharge was
selected to generally emplace more stored groundwater within the E-65 system, which generally exhibits
greater depths to groundwater and greater subsurface storage capacity with the present day vadose
zone.
4.2 Assumptions
Several assumptions were used in the creation of conjunctive water management scenarios and the
development of modeling inputs. The assumptions and their effects to modeling inputs are described
below:
The E-67 system would not be included in a conjunctive water management program. The E-67
system was developed in the early 1950s because area irrigators had trouble accessing adequate
groundwater supplies. Hydrogeologic conditions in the E-67 service area would potentially not be
conducive to conjunctive water management and irrigators may prefer to rely on surface water. In
addition CNPPID recently conducted an improvement project on the E-67 system to line canals and
replace open laterals with buried pipe. For these reasons, the OPSTUDY model for each scenario
included historical diversion demands based on direct delivery of surface water for irrigation in the E67 system.
Improved irrigation efficiency will result in less non-beneficial consumption. Many irrigators who
construct new wells on lands irrigated exclusively with surface water would likely install center pivots.
Center pivots are generally more efficient than furrow-based irrigation systems. Non-beneficial
consumption from standing water in roadway ditches resulting from end-of-field runoff may be
reduced by using more efficient irrigation methods. In addition, water levels in the groundwater
mound could potentially be lowered in a managed way, and direct consumption of groundwater by
phreatophyte vegetation could be reduced.
Recharge diversions will cover canal/lateral seepage and on-farm net irrigation requirements.
Under current operations, diversions into the irrigation system need to cover canal/lateral seepage,
consumptive use demands of crops, and on-farm irrigation inefficiencies. The CNPPID diversion
demands for recharge used in OPSTUDY do not include water needed to cover on-farm irrigation
inefficiencies or the seepage requirements to deliver that water to farms. Rather, CNPPID diversion
demands for recharge include on-farm consumptive use requirements and additional water to cover
the seepage in canals and laterals that will occur along with the delivery of recharge to meet crop
requirements. The majority of on-farm losses from irrigation inefficiencies eventually return to the
Platte River via aquifer recharge from deep percolation or surface flow from end-of-field runoff.
However, some of the losses likely do not return to the river because of evaporation or consumption
by phreatophytes. Platte River gains in OPSTUDY were adjusted downward because diversions for
4-4
Section 4
recharge did not include amounts for on-farm irrigation inefficiencies that would have resulted in
return flows to the Platte River. The gains were reduced by 75% of the on-farm irrigation inefficiency
to account for the reduction in return flows. It was assumed that the remaining 25% of reduced
delivery would not impact gains because some on-farm inefficiencies do not result in return flows at
the Platte River as described above.
Historical contributions to the Republican River basin will be maintained. The groundwater mound
under CNPPIDs service extends into the Republican River basin and creates baseflows that help
Nebraska maintain compliance with the Republican River Compact. The OPSTUDY model in each
conjunctive water management scenario included a recharge demand of 12,000 acre-feet per year
that could be delivered to recharge facilities located where water would accrete to the Republican
River basin.
Maintenance flows may be necessary. If diversions to recharge are curtailed for several years, some
diversion into the canal and lateral system may be beneficial for elimination of weeds and other
maintenance issues. The OPSTUDY modeling runs included 30,000 AF of springtime diversions into
the canal and lateral system every third year for maintenance purposes if diversions were curtailed
for three or more consecutive years.
The value of additional hydropower would be between $0.026 and $0.040 per kWh. CNPPID sells
the hydropower it generates to NPPD. NPPD then sells the energy from CNPPID and others to a
substantial number of cities and agencies in Nebraska. NPPDs rate schedule for the sale of energy
has different energy rates for the summer and winter seasons and different rates for peak and off
times during the day. NPPD solicits renewable power for their system. Unlike most utilities, NPPD
does not give a value to the renewable power they are soliciting, but instead asks for entities
interested in providing power to make a proposal to NPPD. NPPD does, however, give a range of what
it expects the average price of energy to be in 2012. NPPD expects the price of energy to vary
between $0.026 and $0.029/kWh (NPPD, 2012). (NPPD numbers were given in $/MWH, but they
were converted to $/kWh as that is more commonly used unit used to discuss the value of energy on
this scale). In 2010, NPPD also stated that they will not consider wind power with a value that
exceeds $0.040/kWh (NPPD, 2010). A floor of $0.026/kWh and a ceiling of $0.040/kWh was
assumed to be the price that NPPD would be willing to pay for power from CNPPID. It was also
assumed that NPPD would buy power from CNPPID at or nearly at the same rate they would pay for a
new resource.
4.3 Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios

4.3.1 Operational Goals of Scenarios
Each of the conjunctive water management scenarios developed for this study had several overall
operational goals. The goals were developed as a means to evaluate the modeling results of each
scenario. The operational goals are listed in Table 4-2.
4-5
Section 4
Table 4-2. Operational Goals for Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios

Goal
Description
No negative impacts to CNPPID water users
A primary goal of the proposed conjunctive water management program is to

provide benefits CNPPID water users in terms of increased reliability of
irrigation water supplies through management of the groundwater mound and
Lake McConaughy.
Reduce shortages of stream flow at Grand Island
Through retiming of diversions and using both surface water and groundwater
storage, the conjunctive water management program should provide additional
stream flow in the central Platte River during times of stream flow shortage.
Beneficially use stored groundwater in the mound
By relying exclusively on groundwater during drier hydrologic cycles, the

groundwater mound will be used directly by CNPPID irrigators and indirectly as
a means to provide additional stream flows. In areas with high groundwater
tables, lowering the level of the groundwater mound could benefit agricultural
producers.
Alter operation of Lake McConaughy for additional

benefits
Each of the modeling scenarios sought to maintain storage amounts in Lake

McConaughy between 800,000 AF and 1,200,000 AF. Currently, Lake
McConaughy storage levels are generally managed higher than this. The goal
of storing less water in Lake McConaughy could result in the following:
Enhanced recreational opportunities by maintaining shoreline access and

stable water levels.
Additional flood control by preserving reservoir storage space to capture

high flows.
Reduced evaporation losses due to decreased surface area of the lake.
Maintain or increase hydropower production
Revenues from hydropower production are critical and should be either

maintained or increased by the conjunctive water management program.
Additional benefits to NPPD
NPPD has the first right to store inflows into Lake McConaughy at the
beginning of the storage season. Once NPPDs storage amount of 125,000 AF
has been filled, CNPPID and the Environmental Account (a storage account
held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) can fill. The conjunctive water
management program proposed in this study does not seek to alter NPPDs
storage right in any way. Through more reliance on the groundwater mound
and the potential to avoid large declines in storage levels in Lake McConaughy,
the conjunctive water management program could improve the supply of cool
water for Gerald Gentleman Station and enhance the reliability of supply to the
Kearney Canal.
4.3.2 Scenario Descriptions

Three scenarios of conjunctive water management were developed and were evaluated using the
modeling tools employed for this study. Scenarios 1 and 2 were developed as bookends to examine
effects and benefits of conjunctive water management using nearly the entire irrigation distribution
system (Scenario 1) and only a part of it (Scenario 2). Scenario 3 incorporated potential effects and
benefits of additional storage upstream of Grand Island. Descriptions of the scenarios are provided in
Table 4-3.
4-6
Section 4
Table 4-3. Description of Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios

Description
E-65 and Phelps systems in
service
The first scenario assumed that recharge deliveries would be distributed using the E65 and Phelps Canals and associated laterals. The scenario assumed that no
deliveries for direct irrigation would be provided in these systems.
Only the E-65 system is used
The second scenario assumed that the E-65 Canal and associated laterals would be
used to distribute recharge in part of the CNPPID service area. It was assumed that
the Phelps Canal would not be needed for distribution of recharge or direct irrigation
deliveries, because the water table is relatively high in the eastern portion of the
CNPPID service area. CNPPID irrigators under the Phelps Canal would rely on
groundwater wells for irrigation supply. Under the E-65 system, groundwater levels
are generally lower, and there are more opportunities to recharge. Stream flow gains
were reduced to account for the lack of delivery into the Phelps Canal system.
An additional storage facility is

constructed upstream of Grand
Island
The third scenario used the results of Scenario 1 to assess additional stream flow
benefits that could result from the addition of a new surface water storage facility
upstream of Grand Island. The purpose of the storage facility would be to capture
additional excess stream flow and to fine tune management of shortages and excess.
The storage facility could be an off-channel reservoir, an aquifer storage and recovery
facility, an existing structure such as Elwood Reservoir (with new infrastructure), etc.
The specific location of the storage facility was not specified, and the analysis
assumed that the facility would be a surface water reservoir. The evaluation of
Scenario 3 was conducted using a spreadsheet tool rather than OPSTUDY and the
COHYST model.
Scenario 3
Scenario 2
Scenario 1
Scenario
4.3.3 Scenario 1 Simulation Results

Scenario 1 was simulated as described in Section 4.1.1.2 by focusing on the recharge diversions, Lake
McConaughy storage, and stream flow improvements in early years of the simulation and shifting focus
to later years with each successive model run using the assumptions and goals described above.
OPSTUDY was used to simulate surface water effects and benefits. The resulting array of recharge
demands was input into the COHYST model to evaluate the potential for mounding or decline.
4.3.3.1 Surface Water and Hydropower Effects
Several output parameters from OPSTUDY were examined to assess the results of Scenario 1 with
respect to surface water and hydropower effects. The primary output parameters from OPSTUDY used to
evaluate Scenario 1 included storage in Lake McConaughy, average Platte River flows at Grand Island,
Platte River flows at Grand Island during times of shortage, and hydropower production at Kingsley Dam,
the North Platte Hydro, and the CNPPID hydropower facilities. The output parameters for Scenario 1
were compared with the corresponding OPSTUDY output for Baseline Conditions to assess simulated
changes in those parameters under conjunctive water management.
Figure 4-1 illustrates how Lake McConaughy and the groundwater mound were used during the
simulation of Scenario 1. The bottom half of Figure 4-1 shows a bar chart representing annual average
storage in Lake McConaughy in the Baseline Conditions model (blue bars) and as operated under
Scenario 1 (red bars). The top half of the figure illustrates how the groundwater mound was used.
Negative bars (in orange) represent annual demands for recharge that were not diverted but instead
stored in Lake McConaughy or used to boost stream flow. In other words, the orange bars represent
water that was borrowed from the groundwater mound. The green bars represent annual diversions to
recharge and replenish the groundwater mound. Figure 4-1 shows water being borrowed from the
groundwater mound during drier periods (i.e. during the 1950s drought and during drier periods in the
early/mid 1960s, mid/late 1970s, and early 1990s). During wet periods, Figure 4-1 shows recharge of
4-7
Section 4
the groundwater mound occurring during wet periods (i.e. the early 1970s, early 1980s and in other
years). In years where the figure shows neither an orange nor green bar, diversions were made to
recharge in accordance with that years crop consumptive demand and seepage requirements (i.e. the
mound was maintained).
Scenario 1 effects on stream flows at Grand Island are shown in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-2 shows annual
flows at Grand Island in the Baseline Conditions model and under Scenario 1. It also shows FWS annual
target flows. During years when flows are below FWS targets, Figure 4-2 illustrates how stream flows
were increased at Grand Island in Scenario 1. During high flow years in the Baseline Conditions model,
stream flow at Grand Island decreased under Scenario 1, primarily due to recharge diversions into the
CNPPID service area.
The results of Scenario 1 simulations with respect to stream flows and hydropower are described in
Table 4-4. Further description and explanation of the parameters and output is provided in the
discussion following Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Summary of Scenario 1 Stream Flow and Hydropower Effects
Parameter

Management Program
Stream Flow


Hydropower Output
4-8
North Platte Hydro
Total
Average Annual Platte River Flow at Grand Island. Flows at Grand Island increased by 31,000 AF/yr
on average under Scenario 1. With the inclusion of the Environmental Account, average annual
stream flows at Grand Island increased to 46,000 AF/yr. The effects of the Environmental Account
were estimated by running Scenario 1 with and without the Environmental Account active. The
increases in stream flow can be attributed to less overall diversion demand for irrigation/recharge,
less evaporative loss from Lake McConaughy, and operation of Lake McConaughy at a lower average
elevation than under the Baseline Conditions model. The components of the average annual
increase were estimated as follows:
Kingsley
Environmental Account: 15,000 AF/yr

Additional stream flow from reduced demand for irrigation/recharge diversions: 15,100 AF/yr
Lake McConaughy evaporation savings: 9,000 AF/yr
Additional stream flow from reduced McConaughy storage: 6,600 AF/yr

Average Annual Platte River Flow at Grand Island during Times of Shortage. Under Scenario 1, flows
during times of shortage increased at Grand Island by 115,000 AF/yr. The Environmental Account
has been estimated to boost stream flows during times of shortage by 50,000 AF/yr on average. The
Section 4
combined effects of Scenario 1 and the Environmental Account could increase stream flow during
times of shortage at Grand Island by a total of 165,000 AF/yr. Times of shortage were defined as
months when the Baseline Conditions model showed flows at Grand Island were below FWS target
flows. Figure 4-3 illustrates how flows at Grand Island improved under Scenario 1. The figure shows
annual flows at Grand Island during shortage under Baseline Conditions and flows at Grand Island
under Scenario 1 during shortage conditions. The annual flows under shortage conditions were
determined by summing flows at Grand Island during months when FWS target flows were not being
met under Baseline Conditions. Shortage condition flows under Scenario 1 were estimated by
summing the Scenario 1 flows at Grand Island during those same months. Figure 4-3 shows flow
improvements at Grand Island during times of shortage, which provides a key benefit to the PRRIP.
The figure also shows very little improvement when shortages are low (i.e. stream flows are high). It
should be noted that the simulated increase in stream flow at Grand Island resulting from Scenario 1
and the Environmental Account during times of shortage exceeds the PRRIPs first increment goal of
stream flow shortage reductions.
Hydropower Output. Under Scenario 1, Lake McConaughy was simulated to operate at a lower level,
which resulted in less hydropower output at Kingsley Dam. However, more water was passed down
the river and into the North Platte Hydro and CNPPID hydropower facilities. Under Scenario 1 model
simulations, the reductions in Kingsley Dam power production were offset by increases in hydropower
production at other facilities. In summary, average hydropower production under Scenario 1 did not
decrease as compared to Baseline Conditions, but showed a small increase.
Effects to monthly average stream flow at Grand Island under Scenario 1 were also examined.
Figure 4-4 shows that average monthly flows at Grand Island either increased or were similar to Baseline
Conditions in Scenario 1.
4.3.3.2 Groundwater Effects
Recharge amounts and crop consumptive use requirements (or net pumping demands) from the
OPSTUDY modeling were input to the COHYST model to evaluate the potential for long term water table
mounding or declines resulting from recharge and pumping operations prescribed in Scenario 1. Crop
consumptive use requirements averaged just under 70,000 acre-feet per year, and annual recharge
amounts ranged from 100,000 to 400,000 acre-feet depending on available stream flows and recharge
needs. Total simulated recharge amounts from canal/lateral seepage in Scenario 1 were similar to
(approximately 95%) total historical cumulative canal/lateral seepage amounts.
As previously mentioned, the potential for long term mounding and groundwater table decline was
evaluated on a relative, and not an absolute basis. Factors such as variations in groundwater pumping
from wells outside of CNPPID or groundwater inflows or outflows from creeks and drains that would
intercept groundwater were ignored for this simplified analysis.
Figure 4-5 shows the mounding potential at the end of the 50-year modeling period. After 50 years of
pumping to meet the full crop consumptive use demands as well as recharging excess water to the
groundwater mound, results from the COHYST model show no regions of groundwater declines within the
CNPPID service area over the 50-year simulation time period. Results also suggest that groundwater
elevations would have up to 30 feet of mounding potential relative to pre-irrigation conditions. As shown
in the figure, no areas within the Phelps Canal and E-65 systems were projected to experience long term
water table declines when water was recharged evenly throughout both major canal systems and their
laterals.
As groundwater effects were evaluated on a relative or superposition basis based upon previous
climatic and crop consumptive requirements, it is not expected that the groundwater mound will rise the
4-9
Section 4
full 30 feet if Scenario 1 were implemented in the future. Groundwater returns to creeks and drains,
and consumption of groundwater from non-CNPPID lands would prevent the projected groundwater level
rises shown in Figure 4-5; however, it is estimated that there will be a net positive return flow to the
regional Ogallala aquifer system under this conjunctive water use scenario.

The approach for simulating Scenario 2 was the same as the approach for Scenario 1. Output
parameters from OPSTUDY and the COHYST model were assessed in the same way as described for
Scenario 1 above. The results of the Scenario 2 simulations are described below.
4.3.4.1 Surface Water and Hydropower Effects
Figure 4-6 presents Lake McConaughy operations and management of the groundwater mound in the
same way as Figure 4-1 (see Section 4.3.3.1). Patterns of groundwater mound management exhibited
in Scenario 2 were similar to Scenario 1. During dry periods, water was borrowed from the
groundwater mound and replaced/recharged during wetter periods. The difference between the two
scenarios is in the magnitude of borrowing and replacement. In Scenario 2, the E-65 Canal and
associated laterals were the only part of the CNPPID irrigation system assumed to be participating in the
conjunctive water management program. As a result, the ability to manage the groundwater mound was
more limited than in Scenario 1. The Phelps Canal was not used in Scenario 2, and diversion demands
were overall much lower. The lower diversion demands resulted in more available water for storage in
Lake McConaughy or for release to boost stream flows. In Scenario 2, average storage in Lake
McConaughy was slightly higher than in Scenario 1. The higher average storage was not intentional and
was due to the manual nature of the modeling process.
Figure 4-7 shows the effects of Scenario 2 on stream flows at Grand Island. In general, stream flows at
Grand Island increased during times of shortage and decreased during times of excess in Scenario 2
(similar to Scenario 1)
The results of Scenario 2 simulations with respect to stream flows and hydropower are described in
Table 4-5. Further description and explanation of the parameters and output is provided in the
discussion following the table.
Table 4-5. Summary of Scenario 2 Stream Flow and Hydropower Effects
Parameter

Management Program
Stream Flow


Hydropower Output
4-10
Kingsley
North Platte Hydro
Total
Average Annual Platte River Flow at Grand Island. Flows at Grand Island increased by an average of
64,000 AF/yr in Scenario 2, which is approximately twice the impact of Scenario 1. The increase in
average annual flow was primarily due to the lower diversion demand into the CNPPID system. The
components of the average annual increase were estimated as follows. Note that stream flow
increases attributed to Lake McConaughy operational factors were lower as compared to Scenario 1
because Lake McConaughy was operated at a higher level.
Section 4
Environmental Account: 15,000 AF/yr (same estimate used for Scenario 1)

Additional stream flow from reduced demand for irrigation/recharge diversions: 52,300 AF/yr
Lake McConaughy evaporation savings: 6,400 AF/yr
Additional stream flow from reduced McConaughy storage: 5,100 AF/yr

Average Annual Platte River Flow at Grand Island during Times of Shortage. During times of
shortage, flows were simulated to increase at Grand Island by 118,000 AF/yr in Scenario 2. The
increase is very similar in magnitude to Scenario 1. Increases were similar in the two scenarios
because during times of shortage, diversions for recharge into CNPPID were curtailed partially or
completely under both scenarios, and, compared to Baseline Conditions, a similar amount of water
was made available for storage or stream flow enhancement. The Scenario 2 stream flow increase
during times of shortage at Grand Island was 168,000 AF assuming that the Environmental Account
would contribute an additional 50,000 AF/yr. Figure 4-8 shows flow improvements at Grand Island
during times of shortage under Scenario 2. The results for Scenario 2 are very similar to the results
for Scenario 1 in that annual flows at Grand Island showed significant improvement during shortage
periods.
Hydropower Output. Hydropower output in Scenario 2 was simulated to increase by a total of 13.4
MKWH. Total hydropower generation under Baseline Conditions was simulated to be 455 MKWH on
average. The additional hydropower output simulated under Scenario 2 therefore represents a 3%
increase. As in Scenario 1, hydropower output decreased at Kingsley Dam because Lake
McConaughy operated at a lower level. More water flowed down the river and passed through the
North Platte Hydro and the CNPPID hydropower facilities, which offset the decreases from the
Kingsley Dam unit. The increase in overall hydropower output in Scenario 2 could result in additional
revenues of $350,000 to $540,000 per year on average given the assumptions on value of
hydropower presented in Section 4.2.
Effects to monthly stream flows at Grand Island under Scenario 2 are shown in Figure 4-9. The figure
shows that under Scenario 2, monthly average flows during shortage at Grand Island were generally
higher than or similar to flows under Baseline Conditions.
4.3.4.2 Groundwater Effects
Groundwater effects from Scenario 2 were evaluated using monthly recharge amounts for the E-65
Canal system and crop consumptive demands for both the E-65 and Phelps Canal systems. Figure 4-10
shows the results of the COHYST model assessment of Scenario 2.
At the end of the 50-year modeling period, the COHYST model simulated up to 20 feet of mounding
potential in the immediate vicinity of the E-65 canal system as well as up to 40 feet of potential water
table decline within the groundwater mound in the vicinity of the eastern Phelps Canal system. Again, it
is not likely that either the 20-foot increase or the 40-foot decrease would occur in a conjunctive water
management scenario because of other optimization and mitigating factors described under the
Scenario 1 groundwater modeling results. However, the integrated conjunctive use modeling does
suggest that some level of recharge will need to occur in the Phelps Canal service area to maintain the
groundwater mound; although additional groundwater pumping and beneficial use of the groundwater
mound could help preserve valuable cropland and could prevent property damage from seepage and
4-11
Section 4
high water tables. It is likely that recharge will need to be distributed across the Phelps Canal service
area in some amount for an optimal solution. Although such a scenario was not discretely simulated for
this scope of work, it is likely that such a conjunctive water management solution will provide for more
water both to the Platte River system flows as well as regional aquifer reserves.

Scenario 3 used the results of Scenario 1 to evaluate the potential benefits of an additional storage
facility upstream of Grand Island. The analysis was conducted at a very conceptual level using a
spreadsheet tool to simulate the operations of the potential storage facility. The spreadsheet tool
assumed that water would be stored in the facility during months when the results of Scenario 1 showed
stream flow excesses at Grand Island. Water was then released from the facility when flows at Grand
Island were below FWS targets. The spreadsheet tool accounted for maximum storage capacity limits
and storage losses (based on Elwood Reservoir monthly storage losses from OPSTUDY) and was run on a
monthly basis. Limitations on inflow or outflow rates were not included in the analysis. Facilities with
capacities of 40,000 AF and 250,000 AF were assessed using the spreadsheet tool.
4.3.5.1 Surface Water Effects
The results of the conceptual analysis for a 40,000 AF and a 250,000 AF storage facility are shown in
Figure 4-11. In the early years of Scenario 3, excess stream flows at Grand Island were seldom present,
and water for storage was unavailable. Several years show approximately equal benefit for both the
large and small storage facility because excess flows were present, but not in large volumes. In some
years, excess flows were abundant and the larger storage facility provided more benefit than the smaller
facility because it was able to capture and retime more of the excess flow. In later years of the
simulation, more excess flows were available for retiming, and both storage facilities provided a means
to increase flows at Grand Island with the larger facility providing more benefit than the smaller facility.
Figure 4-12 shows the Baseline Conditions and Scenario 1 results in Figure 4-4 (shown with
semitransparent lines) but also includes flows at Grand Island during times of shortage with the
250,000 AF storage facility (Scenario 3 results). The figure shows many years when the additional
storage facility is able to capture excesses and then release the stored water to boost stream flow during
times of shortage.
It should be noted that the iterative nature of the modeling process made it difficult to optimize flows at
Grand Island, and sometimes the simulation of conjunctive water management under Scenario 1
produced more flow than necessary to meet target flows during times of shortage at Grand Island. In
these cases, the storage facility reduced flows at Grand Island and acted as a fine tuning mechanism.
On an average annual basis, the 40,000 AF storage facility provided an additional 14,000 AF of stream
flow improvement during times of shortage at Grand Island. The 250,000 AF facility provided an
average of approximately 50,000 AF/yr of additional flow during times of shortage.
4-12
Section 5
Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions
This study assessed the potential to use existing infrastructure for recharge, evaluated infrastructure
needed to conduct a conjunctive water management program (i.e. new groundwater wells, additional
recharge facilities, etc.) and estimated the effects and benefits of various conjunctive water
management scenarios. The study shows that it is feasible from a technical perspective to alter aspects
of CNPPIDs operations to retime, and thus increase the overall usable water supply in the basin. Table
5-1 summarizes the potential benefits of the conjunctive water management scenarios that were
described in Section 4.
Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Conjunctive Water Management Program Benefits
Parameter
Benefits of Conjunctive Water Management

Grand Island

Grand Island during times of shortage
Total Hydropower Generation

(Potentially over 215,000 acre-feet/year with a 250,000 acre-foot
storage facility)
Increase of 0.1 to 13.4 MKWH

(Increased revenues of potentially over $500,000 per year on average)
Several additional conclusions can be drawn from the results of the evaluations, and they are listed
below.
CNPPID irrigators can reliably use the groundwater mound for irrigation supply. By using the
groundwater mound as the primary source of water supply, CNPPID irrigators would be able to irrigate
when needed and not be subject to potential surface water supply issues. The groundwater mound
could be used and managed as a reservoir for irrigation water supply.
Existing infrastructure can be used for conjunctive water management. The existing canal and
lateral system would be useful and would be the primary recharge facility in a conjunctive water
management program. Other infrastructure, such as recharge basins, may also be beneficial for
recharging in targeted locations or for diverting and delivering larger volumes of excess stream flow
for recharge purposes.
Increased hydropower revenues could be realized. OPSTUDY modeling indicates that overall
hydropower production in the central Platte River valley could increase under a conjunctive water
management program.
5-1
Section 5
Lake McConaughy water levels could be managed for greater stability. By relying on the
groundwater mound as another reservoir of irrigation water supply, CNPPID could gain additional
flexibility in managing storage in Lake McConaughy, which could lead to greater stability in water
levels. Modeling conducted for this study suggested that water levels could be maintained at
relatively stable levels much of the time, but there are times (i.e. during flood conditions) when lake
levels will climb to capacity.
Water can be provided to help return the Platte River below Lake McConaughy to fully appropriated
conditions. NDNR is currently developing methodologies for determining the amount of water supply
that would be needed to return over-appropriated basins back to fully appropriated. The stream flow
benefits derived from a conjunctive water management program would be very beneficial for
returning to fully appropriated status in the Platte River basin.
The PRRIP could benefit significantly from this program. Surface water modeling conducted for this
study suggested that significant stream flow increases could be realized during times of shortage.
Additional stream flows derived from this conjunctive water management program resulting from the
retiming of diversions, releases from storage, etc., would potentially help Nebraska and the basin
states meet the first increment requirements of the PRRIP.
5.2 Recommendations
The conclusions of this conceptual-level study indicate that the conjunctive water management program
described in this report could greatly benefit CNPPID, stakeholders in the central Platte River valley, and
the State of Nebraska. The proposed conjunctive water management program warrants more research
and collaboration among parties that might participate in or benefit from the program.
Recommendations for future activities to advance this program are listed below:
Refine the modeling analysis. This study was conducted at a conceptual level and the analysis tools
had several limitations. Limitations and recommendations for overcoming the limitations are
described below:
The surface water analysis tools were limited in their ability to optimize stream flow, storage in
Lake McConaughy and in the groundwater mound, and hydropower production. Optimization
modeling could be conducted to more precisely estimate the benefits of conjunctive water
management. It is possible that optimization modeling would reveal additional stream flow,
storage and hydropower benefits.
Groundwater changes and effects were estimated on a relative and not an absolute basis. The
objective of the groundwater modeling was to identify locations in CNPPIDs service area where it
would be difficult to maintain the groundwater aquifer in a conjunctive water management
program. The objective was not to identify specific levels of drawdown or water table rise.
Additional groundwater modeling needs to be conducted to identify actual water levels changes
that may occur under a conjunctive water management program.
Effects to Platte River gains were roughly approximated and did not reflect the effects of periodic
rising and lowering of the groundwater mound. Integrated surface and groundwater modeling
tools would be useful in dynamically modeling the effects of groundwater mound management on
the Platte River.
The modeling analysis did not include the drought of the early 2000s. The conjunctive water
management program should be evaluated against the dry conditions experienced during this
drought.
5-2
Section 5
Develop operating rules. The modeling analyses conducted for this study were based on several
assumptions regarding how the conjunctive water management program would be operated.
CNPPID, NPPD, the PRRIP, and other stakeholders who could benefit or be impacted by the program
should be engaged and should collaborate to develop and refine program objectives and operating
rules. It is likely that additional scenarios of conjunctive water management will be developed
through this process.
Assess current and future infrastructure needs. This study identified potential benefits from
additional storage and recharge infrastructure and facilities, but the facilities are undefined in terms
of actual locations, size, timing of need, etc. Additional assessments of needed infrastructure should
be conducted once more refined modeling is performed and operating rules and goals are developed.
In addition, field investigations could be conducted on existing canals and laterals to refine
understandings of the spatial differences and magnitudes in recharge potential throughout the
system. More refined modeling analyses of existing infrastructure and the aquifer may identify areas
where additional infrastructure would be needed.
Explore legal, environmental, and socioeconomic considerations. The analysis in this report focused
on technical aspects of a conjunctive water management program. Legal, environmental,
socioeconomic and other considerations should be evaluated as the conjunctive water management
program develops.
5-3
Section 6
Limitations
This document was prepared solely for the Client in accordance with professional standards at the time
the services were performed and in accordance with the contract between the Client and Brown and
Caldwell dated June 30, 2010. This document is governed by the specific scope of work authorized by
the Client; it is not intended to be relied upon by any other party except for regulatory authorities
contemplated by the scope of work. We have relied on information or instructions provided by the Client
and other parties and, unless otherwise expressly indicated, have made no independent investigation as
to the validity, completeness, or accuracy of such information.
Further, Brown and Caldwell makes no warranties, express or implied, with respect to this document,
except for those, if any, contained in the agreement pursuant to which the document was prepared. All
data, drawings, documents, or information contained this report have been prepared exclusively for the
person or entity to whom it was addressed and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity
without the prior written consent of Brown and Caldwell unless otherwise provided by the Agreement
pursuant to which these services were provided.
6-1
References
Blomquist, W.A., E. Schlager, T. Heikkila, Common Waters, Diverging Streams. Linking Institutions to Water Management
in Arizona, California, and Colorado. Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 2004.
Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District. Irrigation Division. http://www.cnppid.com/Irrigation_Division.htm,
December 2, 2011.
Howell, T.A. Encyclopedia of Water Science. Irrigation Efficiency. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, NY. 2003. pp 467472
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, Platte River Conjunctive Management Study,
http://dnr.ne.gov/PlatteRiver/platteriverstudy.html
Nebraska Public Power District. Small Scale Renewable Resources. http://www.nppd.com/about-us/power-plantsfacilities/renewable-energy/small-scale-renewable-resources/. 2012.
Nebraska Public Power District. Request for Proposal no. 10005, Power Purchase from Small Renewable Electric
Generation Projects. April 1, 2010.
Peterson, Steven M. Groundwater Flow Model of the Eastern Model Unit of the Nebraska Cooperative Hydrology Study
(COHYST) Area, Approved by Technical Committee, November 13, 2007.
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. Final Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, Water Plan,
Appendix B, FWS Use of the Central Platte Opstudy Model in Computing Reductions in Shortages to Target Flows.
2006.
REF-1
Figure32.AnnualDeliveryLossesandDeliveryEfficiencyforCNPPID
IrrigationSystem
240,000
60%
220,000
50%
160,000
40%
140,000
120,000
30%
,
100,000
80,000
20%
60,000
40,000
10%
AnnualDeliveryLoss
20,000
AnnualDeliveryEfficiency
Year
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
1958
0%
1956
AnnuallDeliveryEfficiency
180,000
1954
AnnualDeliveryLosses(acrefeet)
200,000
Figure33.SummaryofAverage19542002HistoricalMonthlyDelivery
LossAmountsfromCNPPIDIrrigationDistributionSystem
45,000
40,000
35,000
Amou
unt(acrefeett)
30,000
25,000
20 000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure35.SummaryofCNPPIDWaterBudget
CropConsumption,
6%
IrrigationLoss,
15%
LossbeforeIrrigation,
24%
ReturnstotheRiver
through Jeffrey and J2
throughJeffreyandJ2,
55%
2,400
400
200
Replacinggroundwater
2,200
0
Borrowing
groundwater
AnnualAve
erageLakeMcCon
naughyStorage(K
KAF)
2,000
200
1,800
400
1,600
600
1,400
800
1,200
1000
1,000
1200
1200
800
1400
600
1600
400
1800
200
2000
2200
2200
Year
Amountrecharged
A
d(+)or
borro
owed()frommou
und(KAF)
2,600
Figure41.UseofGroundwaterMoundinCombinationwithLakeMcConaughyStorage
underConjunctiveWaterManagmentScenario1
BaselineCondition
ConjunctiveWaterManagementScenario1
Figure42.EffectsofConjunctiveWaterManagmentScenario1onAnnualFlows
atGrandIsland
4,500
BaselineCondition
4,000
FWSTargetflow
AnnualFlowatGrandIslaand(KAF)
3 500
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Year
Figure43.EffectsofConjunctiveWaterManagementScenario1onFlowsat
GrandIslandDuringTimesofShortage
1,400
AnnualFlowVolumeDurringShortage(KAF)
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
Year
FlowsatGIDuringShortage Baseline
FlowatGIDuringShortage Scenario1
AvgAnnualFlowatGIDuringShortage Baseline
AvgAnnualFlowatGIDuringShortage Scenario1
FWSTargetIncreaseDuringShortage
Figure44.EffectsofConjunctiveWaterManagementScenario1onAverageMonthlyFlows
atGrandIslandDuringTimesofShortage
180
BaselineCondition
160
FWSTargetFlows
140
Fllows(KAF)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2,200
400
200
Replacinggroundwater
2,000
0
Borrowing
groundwater
AnnualAvverageStorageinLakeMcConaugh
hy(KAF)
1 800
1,800
200
1,600
400
1,400
600
1,200
800
1,000
1000
800
1200
600
1400
400
1600
200
1800
2000
2000
Year
Amountrecharged
A
d(+)or
borrowed()frommo
ound(KAF)
2,400
Figure46.UseofGroundwaterMoundinCombinationwithLakeMcConaughyStorage
underConjunctiveWaterManagmentScenario2
BaselineCondition
Figure47.EffectsofConjunctiveWaterManagmentScenario2onAnnualFlows
atGrandIsland
4,500
4,000
BaselineCondition
FWSTargetFlow
AnnualFFlowsatGrandIslaand(KAF)
3 500
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Year
Figure48.EffectsofConjunctiveWaterManagementScenario2onFlowsat
GrandIslandDuringTimesofShortage
1400
AnnualFlowVolumeDurringShortage(KAFF)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Year
FlowatGIDuringTimesofShortage Scenario2
AvgannualflowatGIDuringTimesofShortage Baseline
AvgAnnualFlowatGIDuringShortage Scenario2
Figure49.EffectsofConjunctiveWaterManagementScenario2onAverageMonthlyFlows
atGrandIslandDuringTimesofShortage
180
BaselineCondition
160
FWSTargetFlows
140
Fllows(KAF)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure411.AdditionalIncreaseinFlowatGrandIsland(BeyondScenario1Improvements)
DuringTimesofShortageDuetoAdditionalStorageofVariousCapacities
350
300
Flowimprove
ementatGrand
dIsland(KAF)
40KAFofstorage
250KAFofstorage
250
200
150
100
50
Year
Figure412.EffectsofConjunctiveWaterManagementScenario3on
FlowsatGrandIslandDuringTimesofShortage
1400
AnnualFlowVolumeDurringShortage(KAFF)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Year
AvgAnnualFlowsatGIDuringShortage Baseline
AvgAnnualFlowsatGIDuringShortage Scenario3
FlowatGIDuringShortage Scenario1
AvgAnnualFlowsatGIDuringShortage Scenario1
FlowsatGIDuringShortage Scenario3
Prepared by
1697 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200

Golden, CO 80401
Tel: 303.239.5400

Conjunctive Water Management Conceptual Study

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Conjunctive Water Management Conceptual Study

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Conjunctive Water

Management Conceptual Study

Conjunctive Water Management Conceptual Study

1697 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200

4.3 Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios ................................................................................ 4-5

Center for Advanced Land Management

Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation

Cooperative Hydrology Study

Central Platte Natural Resources District

CPR Model Central Platte River OPSTUDY model

Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Integrated Surface Water and Groundwater

Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

Net irrigation requirement

Nebraska Public Power District

Natural Resources District

Platte River Recovery Implementation

Twin Platte Natural Resources District

Conjunctive Water Management

Study Goal and Objectives

Assessment of Existing Conditions

Water Budget Development

Water Budget for CNPPID System

Total Annual Diversions into the Tri-County

1,074,000 NDNR gage 142000

47,000 NDNR gage 143000

Returns through J-2

547,000 NDNR gage 144000

Seepage and Lake Evaporation Prior to

257,000 Calculated remainder

Amount Provided to Irrigation System

235,000 CNPPID records

Amount Provided to Irrigation System

235,000 CNPPID records

Seepage Loss in Canals and Laterals

138,000 CNPPID records

Historical CNPPID On-farm Irrigation

97,000 CNPPID records

Net Irrigation Requirement

Returns through Jeffrey

Assessment of the Effects and Benefits of Conjunctive Water Management

Description of Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios

No negative impacts to CNPPID water users

A primary goal of the proposed conjunctive water management program is to

Reduce shortages of stream flow at Grand Island

Beneficially use stored groundwater in the mound

By relying exclusively on groundwater during drier hydrologic cycles, the

Alter operation of Lake McConaughy for additional

Each of the modeling scenarios sought to maintain storage amounts in Lake

Enhanced recreational opportunities by maintaining shoreline access and

Additional flood control by preserving reservoir storage space to capture

Reduced evaporation losses due to decreased surface area of the lake.

Maintain or increase hydropower production

Revenues from hydropower production are critical and should be either

Additional benefits to NPPD

Description of Conjunctive Water Management Scenarios

Only the E-65 system is used

An additional storage facility is

Change under Conjunctive Water

Increase of 31,000 AF/yr

Increase of 64,000 AF/yr

(46,000 AF/yr with Environmental Account)

(79,000 AF/yr with Environmental Account)