PIM.Denver.FINAL_11.10

• Basin: South Platte
• Title: Public Information Meeting - Denver
• Date: 9/8/2003
• SWSI - Doc Type: Summaries

Obtain the study of Dual Water Systems in Utah that was conducted by John
Wilkens-Wells.
Obtain guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on best practices in
agriculture that maximize the efficient use of water.
Develop an e-mail bulletin to all who have signed in that contains upcoming
meeting times and updates.
Obtain a copy of the South Metropolitan water supply study.
Obtain a copy of the Jefferson County mountain ground water resource study.
The comments below recap the concerns, issues and questions that were raised at the
basin?s Public Information Meeting. These are general summaries of what was said,
grouped by key theme, and are not verbatim quotes from the participants. The
suggestions, comments and questions documented here will be incorporated into the SWSI
study process. This public input is greatly appreciated, as it will help guide the SWSI study
team as the process moves forward. The SWSI team will seek to answer any questions
raised at these meetings, and will include these answers as part of the SWSI final report.
Ensure strong and diverse participation in the SWSI process :
±
Water is a highly technical issue. It will be important to summarize the statistics
and technical information that SWSI will use in a way the public can understand.
Otherwise, the public will not understand the different solutions and strategies, or
the study?s conclusions and recommendations.
±
It is important that the diverse water interests in the basin and the state work
together in the Technical Roundtables. SWSI will need a strategy or facilitation
tools to get them to work together.
±
It would enhance the image of the project if the members of the Technical
Roundtables and whom they represent are identified and made known to the
public.
±
When you get done with all of the public input and discussion, where does it go
from there? SWSI needs to inform us what will happen next from these public
input sessions.
±
A CWCB Board member addressed the question of whether the result of this
study is to identify two projects, of which the Governor has to choose one to build.
It was explained that this requirement comes from Referendum A, the ballot
initiative (which failed in the Nov 4 election) to authorize the issuance of $2 billion
in bonds to build water projects. Referendum A was distinct and separate from
SWSI. SWSI will identify solutions to water shortages in basins where they exist.
These solutions may or may not require infrastructure or structural improvements.
If SWSI determines that structural improvements are needed, they could be
financed by bonds that could have been issued under Referendum A (had it been
approved by Colorado voters). But SWSI was not predicated on these funds being
available under Referendum A.
±
A CWCB Board member addressed the question of whether the CWCB has a
?secret list? of projects it intends to build after the SWSI project has been
completed. It was explained that no such list exists and that the CWCB is not
approaching this with any preconceived notions.