Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Resources Committee Minutes <br /> <br />Sheridan, Wyoming <br />October 5, 2006 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />are inconsistent methodologies and that is a bit of a headache. Sometimes the definitions were different. The <br />state could have done better in identifying where there are shortages, and what they plan to do about that. <br /> <br />South Dakota <br /> <br />South Dakota's state water plan is a little bit different, according to Garland Erbele. They have been <br />doing statewide water plans for about twenty years, but it is an annual water plan. It is geared more towards <br />funding of water projects. They do planning to identify what a particular project might be, so they can be <br />eligible to apply for funding for such things as wastewater projects, drinking water projects, etc. <br /> <br />South Dakota is not really involved in projecting the water needs of a basin or a community. That <br />is done more on a local basis. <br /> <br />California <br /> <br />Jeanine reported that California has had a program of state water planning since the 1950s. They <br />have a requirement to prepare and update a state water plan every five years. The most current version was <br />done in 2005. It uses a 2030 planning horizon. This version of the plan is less quantitative in that it looks <br />at a range of planning scenarios and includes everything from one that focuses on extreme levels of <br />conservation to one that focuses on a high level of development. So, depending on what answer you want, . <br />you can either say you need more water in the future, or you don't need more water in the future. Thus, that <br />makes it harder than just taking one number and plugging it in and getting an answer as to how much water <br />we need. The answers range from zero to a bunch, depending on which scenario you pick. This is being used <br />as a springboard to doing some integrated regional planning on a hydrologic region basis in California, based <br />on some bond funding that may be coming. <br /> <br />Texas <br /> <br />Weir Labatt noted that for years Texas had a top down approach to water planning, and it never <br />worked. So, in 1997, they developed a new approach. There are now sixteen different water planning regions <br />throughout the state. Those sixteen regions each develop a plan based on population projections that the <br />Texas Water Development Board helps create, but then they debate those figures. Once they have a <br />population projection, they can project what the demand will be. Each region develops a plan, and those <br />plans are turned into the Board for compilation. The first plan was done in 2002. They are working on the <br />second iteration. The planning horizon is SO years, and the updates are done on a rolling five-year cycle. The <br />Board will approve that plan in November. It is a very comprehensive plan and is similar to California's. <br />It is very voluminous and contains lots of data based on supplies, projected needs, and alternatives to meet <br />the needs. <br /> <br />Colorado <br /> <br />Rod Kuharich commented that Colorado based their state water plan on the work that Texas did. <br />They began a three-year planning process done with a basin-by-basin approach. This is the first time that <br />Colorado, as a state, has begun water planning efforts. The state demographer provided the population <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />6 <br />