Laserfiche WebLink
<br />... , . " -, <br /> <br />efforts, to identify water supply solutions.. We are concerned, however, that the Statewide Water <br />Supply Investigation has an impossibly short time frame and inadequate funding to accomplish <br />its mission. The South Metropolitan Water Supply Study, on the other hand, is narrowly focused <br />on problems facing one geographic area of the state, and many'ofthe draft compone11ts have far- <br />reaching impacts. For example, the conjullctive use components that you identify in your letter <br />will have impacts to the Upper Colorado River ~asin that must be more-fully understood4 As <br />you noted, Denver and the Colorado River Water Conservation' District have not yet decided to <br />support these components becallse the South Metropolitan Water Supply Study is still in the ' <br />preliminary draft stages. It would be ill-advised for anyone to take 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 ifpeople become invested in any <br />alternative at this stage of the process. <br /> <br />With regard to basin of origin protection, we have very Inixed feelings. On the one hand, <br />we are glad that people recognize that trans-basin water use has impacts and that the impacts . <br />should be taken into consideration. Not so long ag6~ the major players inJhe water development <br />community believed that water rights could be exercised with complete disregard for impacts to <br />the basin of origin. There have been a number of bills over the past ten years that attempt to <br />address this issue in one form or another. Unfortunately, many o.fthe legislative proposals did <br />not recognize that impacts may vary widely from basin to basi~~ and more importantly, <br />individual jurisdictions evaluate'impacts differently. For example, in some basins, impacts <br />might be mitigated by comp~nsatory stor~ge;. in other basins, storage is +lot feasible, or would no't <br />address local concerns. Some areas of the state may be most concerned about i~pacts to water <br />. quality, while other areas may be concerned about economic losses. Lost 'opportunities for. <br />grovvth 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 tlnderst~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,ce leads us to <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 comprises Sllmmit: Grand~ <br />Pitl{in, Eagle Counties and most of their municipalities and water/wastewater districts; also} Parl{ <br />and Gtllmison Counties, and the towns of Yampa and Crested Bloltte4 QQ is dedicated to <br />protecting the l1eadwaters of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers, and we advocate cooperative, <br />integrated water planning in Colorado. We welcome efforts by the Attorney Gelleral to. further <br />these goals. . <br /> <br /> <br />pectfu~ . <br /> <br />- ~N'~C "' <br />ames ewberry, omm:(ssloner <br />Board of County Commissioners of Grand COl;1nty <br />