Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Make SWSI more understandable: <br /> <br />o I'm a little unclear how SWSI can directly help the San Juan/Dolores Basin. In <br />our case, the San Miguel project was originally supposed to be part of the <br />Colorado River Storage Act, but it was not built. How will SWSI address this and <br />other issues? <br />o Will each basin have a different solution under the SWSI process? There is an in- <br />stream flow problem in the San Miguel, which needs to be analyzed and <br />resea rched. <br />o What provisions are being made to assess the needs of the sub-basins within the <br />large basin? <br />o I'm delighted to see this process coming from the CWCB. The water process is <br />not always trying to reach out to the community, and I'm glad to see a democratic <br />process for this project. <br />o There appears to be an error related to population on page 1 of the March 2002 <br />CWCB Growth and Demand fact sheet. Wouldn't the projected increase in <br />population cause a discrepancy in other statistics? <br /> <br />Preserve the agricultural lifestyle and economy: <br /> <br />o The San Juan/Dolores basin has a commonality with the Arkansas Basin. Both <br />have growing cities which need water while making sure there is adequate water <br />for agriculture. Agriculture is an essential economic base for our towns and <br />cities. The problem is that the agriculture industry can't afford to pay for the <br />projects they need. We need to recognize that the municipalities do not have the <br />financial resources to pay for those projects or help themselves. I know that the <br />CWCB doesn't want to get involved, but there has to be something done about <br />preventing the growth on the Front Range so it does not crush rural Colorado. <br />That is why SWSI will need to address the dynamic between the Front Range and <br />the Western Slope, especially the compensatory storage issue. <br />o Water will always go to the money. If you look at history, it's obvious that water <br />always flows toward those with the money. <br />o I see SWSI as helping the cities and hurting the agricultural interest because <br />agriculture has a small voice. Agriculture does own the acreage, and hopefully <br />that can counteract the power of the city. <br />o Everyone has a mouth, and has to eat. Food comes from agriculture, and SWSI <br />needs to recognize that agriculture is as important as water. <br />o With all the pressures being put on agriculture such as real estate development <br />and environmental issues, someone should look at how quickly farmers may <br />appear on the "endangered species" list. <br />o Keep agricultural water as agricultural water - or we will all be endangered. <br /> <br />Adeauately account for future demand and growth: <br /> <br />o SWSI should examine ways to keep in-stream flows high enough for both irrigation <br />and fish levels. Also, the state should look at incentives for conservation at <br />municipalities, golf courses, and ski resorts. <br />o SWSI could help with developing ways for flexibility in utilizing water. People in <br />our basin were not able to make the best use of water under severe conditions <br />because we could not use adjudicated water. The Bureau of Reclamation had a <br />higher priority for water, and so it was decided to put spring run-off in storage, and <br />we couldn't touch it. <br /> <br />GBSM, SWSI Public Information Meeting Summary, 11.10.03 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />