WSP10590 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O.":~J~n "'J v d =....1 State levels. The "activities" section entails a case-by-case format in which State and regiona 1 activities within each of the State's ei ght designated "program areas" are detail ed. Simply stated, the section defines through illustration the functional roles of the State and regions in the Colorado drought response effort. 3. 1 REG ION A L D R 0 UGH T MAN AGE MEN T One of the unique aspects of Colorado's response to the drought was the State's uti1izai.:ion of substate regional organizations in drought response activities. The following sections describe, in reasonable detail, the regional management options considered at the State level and relevant decision-making criteria; the subsequent formalization of the State/regional relationship and some of the early problems encountered; and, finally, some of the functional modes of decision-making which occurred within various regional management program structures. 3.1.1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONAL DROUGHT MANAGEMENT CONCEPT During the early stages of the State drought mitigation project it was recognized that a mechanism was needed to localize the focus of drought program activities. The belief at the State policy-making level was that, because the drought was a Statewide phenomenon, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a handful of administrators in the Governor's Office in Denver to maintain an adequate degree of sensitivity to localized drought-related needs throughout the State. With this consideration in mind, the Governor's chief advisor on natural resources, the newly appointed State Drought Coordinator, and various members of the first State Drought Council undertook the task of developing a localized approach to drought management. The process began in mid-February 1977. The Colorado State University County Extension offices, established water conservancy districts, and 13 subs tate regional organizations (11 Councils of Government [COGS), one Regional Planning Commission [RPC~, and one Regional Commission [RC] serving in Colorado's 13 planning and management regions) were the substate entities most seriously considered for the assumption of locally oriented drought program activities. All three groups of entities held established positions within substate governmental and economic arenas, making them credible channels for the localized drought response activities desired by the State. However, it was perceived that the Extension ~:~vice offices and the conservancy districts tended toward a one-sided agricultural orientation in their regional substate organizations' normal flow of activities. The COGs, on the other hand, were perceived to have spheres of involvement which featured stronger balances between the State's agricultural and municipal sectors. If the drought were to continue through the summer with the degree of intensity 33