PUB00145 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" . :: :1 I :1 . . Western States Water Council Water Resources Committee Minutes Sheridan, Wyoming October 5, 2006 the first go around. At that time, they had a twenty year planning horizon. They prepared a report for each basin in thf: state, and this process took nearly fifteen years. In 1999, they began to review each basin again. They began with the basins where there was a lot of growth, and they updated the plans basically following the same template used previously. However, in 1999, they realized they were getting ready for a new century and so they summarized the whole state plan in about 70 pages. They talked more specifically about what could be done for future water supplies. In 2000-2001, Utah put out a state water report, and it identifies more specifically the issues that are also included in the Governors' water report (lA -- how to meet future water needs). They focused on municipal needs. Also, they moved from a planning horizon of twenty years to a fifty-year horizon. Thus, right now, the planning horizon in Utah is the year 2050. When they get to 2010, the horizon will be 2060, so it will pwbably move in ten-year blocks, so they maintain a 40-50 year planning horizon. With respect to population, they get their numbers from the Utah Office of Planning and Budget. The state wants to set policy, and have the Department of Water Resources identify how the needs are going to be met. So if the population will be 5 million in 2050, where will the water come from? If they want to have more water in the streams, then the legislature will explain that to the Department, which will explain what the model will look like. It is very c1ear that the state's Office of Planning and Budget want the Water Resources Department to react to their figures. There are consequences of less water in the stream, such as less grass, more conse:rvation, etc. The process inc1udes meeting with the people, meeting with the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, and then try to bring the two together and come up with a report that inc1udes all of the issues, yet is current and changing. It has been a good process. The report is available online at htto://www. utah. wateq:!;ov. From a Utah perspective, this report fits really well into the WSWC's effort. Wyoming Pat Tyrrell commented that Wyoming's plan is not quite as far along as Utah's. Wyoming had a framework plan in 1973. It was simply a paper report. In the latter 1990s, they began basin planning. They have since moved around the state and prepared plans for each ofthe basins. They are currently in the mode of writing another framework plan. Some of that is still evolving. A good deal of data collection has been done on supplies, existing demands, and there are some projections. They need more detail on how to meet those demands, and in defining specific projects to meet those demands. Wyoming does have a "renewing" planning process, going back on a 5-6 year rotating schedule to revisit each basin. The agricultural use is often the largest use and ofttimes does not lend itself to a meter and a pipe. They will complete the current rotation in about another year, and will then begin the second round of revisiting each basin. SUi;:: Lowry reiterated that the state has done a nice job with the water supply side. The Wyoming Water Development Commission outsources work to consultants. They are currently in the process of pulling the seven basin plans together, and they are finding that although the scopes are written consistently, there 5