My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SouthPlatteComments06
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
SouthPlatteComments06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:33:57 AM
Creation date
1/4/2008 2:44:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
South Platte
Title
Comments 6
Date
11/3/2003
SWSI - Doc Type
Comments
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Comments to SWSlr November 3, 2003~ by John Wiener <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />another uset which may be a storage mechanism (a conjunctive use or recharge or reservoir)t or <br />a crediting plan so that flows used for environmental purposes are credited under interstate <br />obligations, or used in some fashion to meet that. The farmer is "covered", the city roses a tittle <br />but not aU of its costs in the arrangement. and the State acts as the user of last resort. <br /> <br />There are two important points about the State's role. Fjrst, there is some flexibiHty in the <br />Arkansas Compact and the others, as well as arrangements such as the CO-NE-WY "3 State <br />Agreement". Unless the State has somehow exceeded aU frcredit" possib'e in making up deficits <br />in past fJows and storing credits against future flows, this is a "savings account". Future- <br />applicable credits allow for easier' management when there is us'ack" in the system. If the State <br />had no use for the water, and no way to store it (aquifer recharge ete), the water would have very <br />little value, since by definition there would be a great deal of water and would have been a great <br />deaf for a long time. As the saying goes, uwe should be so fucky..... Second, the State shou'd <br />have uniqueJy good ability to operate exchanges, as part of its constitutionaJ mission of <br />maximizing the beneficial use of the waters of the state. Performing this may depend on <br />providing accelerated funding to the Division of Water Resources and Office of the State <br />Engineer, to establish and operate the decision support systems and enhance adminjstrative <br />capacity of the State Engineer. This expense would be trivial compared to that for creation of <br />significant new storage, and it would herp to optimize use of the new storage, improving return on <br />that investment. <br /> <br />The point of all this is really getting to the "best investment" - not the most, or the most in a <br />particurar place. And so, there are vafues involved. But among the measurable varues, and the <br />easily compared vafues, economic thinking has useful guidance. One way to think about this is to <br />imagine that you - a member of the roundtable, ewes or anyone - own all the resources in the <br />basin. How would you want to manage this diverse set of assets to get good returns in most <br />years, not lose your shirt in bad years, and keep from Josing pieces from misaffocatjng other <br />assets? Thinking that way opens up ideas like using the timing of water fJows. Will that work? It <br />should be discoverabfe~ What else would you do? <br /> <br />OBJECTIVE 2 -- Maximize efficient use of existing suppry <br /> <br />This should incfude a subhead recognizing unintended current uses such as the substantial <br />recreational, amenity and rear estate values, and environmenta' benefits from ..Ieakage" (usually <br />conveyance losses) from water distribution systems. The subhead calling for reduction of <br />conveyance losses, along with the subhead calling for increasing efficiency of use (presumably <br />conveyance and appUcation or field application), actually threatens some of the most valuable <br />uuses" of water in the state~ Consider the costs of acquiring rights..of-way and then providing the <br />linear urban forestry that perhaps a majorjty of the State.s population experjences every day. No <br />city is without its agricultural heritage; and even the high~artitude towns have a ditch in their past <br />(except the recently invented .'recreation-scapesU). This is discussed in the comments below. <br /> <br />OBJECTIVE 3 -- Enhance use of existing system assets <br /> <br />This should explicitly include recognition of existing smalJ-scale water distribution systems.... the <br />ditches, smalr reservoirs and canals - as well as the large water storage systems. Too often, this <br />kind of Janguage means "seek better use of existing reservoirs subject to rule-curve <br />management", and seems limited in effect to arguing about the flood space requirements, and <br />dates for requiring that they be emptied. The whole infrastructure of water management is much <br />greater, and the va~ues and expectations built up around it are very important (as noted below). <br /> <br />OBJECTIVE 4 - Maximize implementability <br /> <br />This objective should include a subhead calling for increased investment jn public information <br />about what can be technically and legally done; the toof deveroped by Garcia et at at Colorado <br />State University called lISPMapll is a great tool for planning and consideration of ideas (see <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.