Laserfiche WebLink
<br />., " .. <<t <br /> <br />efforts, to identify water supply solutions._ We are concerned, however, that th~ Statewide Water <br />Supply Investigation has an impossibly short time frame and inadequate funding to accomplish <br />its mission. The South Metropolitan Water Sllpply Stlldy, on the other hand, is narrowly focused <br />on problems facing one geographic area of the state, and many of the draft compone11ts have far- <br />reaching impacts. For example; the conju11ctive llse components that you identify in your letter <br />will have impacts to the Upper Colorado River Basin that must be more~fully understood. As <br />you noted, Denver and the Colorado River Water Conservation" District have not yet decided to <br />support these components because the South Metropolitan Water Supply Study is still in the ' <br />preliminary dr~ft stages~ It would be ill-advised for anyone to tal<e a position until the study is <br />refined and finalized. The cooperative efforts between east and west slope participants in the- <br />South Metropolitan Water Supply Study could be derailed if people become invested in any <br />alternative at ~is stage of the process~ <br /> <br />. ~ <br /> <br />With regard to basin of origin protection, we have very mixed feeling~. On the one hand, <br />we are glad that pc:ople recognize that trans-basin water use has impacts and that the impacts <br />'should be taken into consideration. Not so long ago.~ the major players in..the water development <br />community believed that water rights could be exercised with complete disregard for impacts to <br />th~ basin of origin. There have been a number of bills over the past ten years that a~tempt to <br />address this issue in one form or another. Unfortunately, many o"fthe legislative proposals did <br />not recognize that impacts may ~ary Widely from basin to basin, and more ~mportantly, . <br />individual jurisdictions evaluate- impacts differently. For example, in some basins, impacts <br />might be mitigated by comp~nsatory stor':lge;" in other basins, storage is p.ot feasible, or would not <br />address local concerns. Some areas of the state may be most concerned about ip1pacts to water <br />. quality, while other areas may be concerned about economic losses." Lost"opportunities for' " <br />growth may be important in eastern Colorado or the Sail Luis Valley, while impacts to fisheries, . <br />rafting flows and wastewater treatment plants may be most critical in mountain areas. Few <br />legislative proposals underst~nd these distinctions or adequately protect local decision-mal<ing. <br />Ironically, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments has found itself in opposition to many" <br />basin of origin protection bills for these reasons. If your office is crafting legal language, yve <br />would be eager to lend some of our-legal staff to that effort, although experien~e leads u~ t~ <br />. believe that legislation is not the solution to the state's water issues. <br /> <br />Once again, we appreciate your willingness to step forward as a leader in this very <br />important issue. I have the pleasure of being chairman of the Northwest Colorado Council of <br />Governments Water Quality and Quantity Committee ("QQ") which cOlllprises Summit: Grand, <br />Pitkin; Eagle Counties and lTIOst of their municipalities and water/wastewater districts; also; Parl< <br />and GUtUliSOll Counties, and the tOWllS of Yampa and Crested Butte. QQ is dedicated to <br />protecting the 11eadwaters of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers, and we advocate cooperative, <br />integrated water planl1ing in Colorado, We welcome efforts by tIle Attorney Ge11eral to. further <br />these goals, r <br /> <br />~p~ <br /> <br />Vames NewbelTY, Cemm- sioner <br />Board of COllnty Commissioners of Grand Co~nty <br /> <br />