PIM.Gunnison.FINAL_11.10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

± SWSI should clarify how the process will deal with Front Range interests. The process should make residents aware of activities going on in other basins. ± Every basin needs to figure out how to solve its own water problems. ± It will be a tough job for SWSI to put all of the water interests together. There have been legal actions taken to prove that the Gunnison River basin does not have a lot of water to waste. The Gunnison Basin has water because our forefathers had the foresight to develop storage. The residents and industry of this basin need the water that is here?there is no extra water. ± What are this basin?s in-stream flow rights, what kind of priority lies in the flow of the river? Water should be kept in the basin. Take into account the information already developed on the Gunnison River basin?s water : ± Gunnison?s population has only been growing 1% a year. Growth studies need to be updated and kept current for the SWSI process. ± There has already been a great deal of planning within the Gunnison River basin, so good data is available. The Gunnison River basin is already one of the most developed basins in the state. The SWSI process must be thorough with cost- benefit analysis practices. ± SWSI should take into account past studies to see what went wrong with past assumptions. SWSI should also take into account current projects, and accurately lay out the assumptions. What assumptions are we making about the demand for water and where it will be located? ± Using the web as a means for disseminating Colorado water information will be helpful. Many Colorado water studies have been completed. For example, put on the SWSI website the ?State Water Plan? from 1972 and studies by the State Engineer to bring water to eastern Colorado by the Mississippi. Follow the practice in California by the Imperial Irrigation District as an example. www.gmugpathfinder.org has preliminary information on it and we are finalizing our recommendations so we will have a report. It could be a template for implementation for other areas in the state. ± SWSI should review the work being done as part of the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison Pathfinder Process. Better water management is needed : ± Storage efficiency needs to be improved. Reservoirs need to be enlarged and improved, as well as new ones developed. ± SWSI needs to look at additional agricultural needs for water by users downstream, and perhaps consider augmenting downstream agricultural water. ± SWSI should look at ensuring that everyone in this basin has adequate water supply for different needs during the year. SWSI could be just another scheme to get more people to move into the state and I don?t like that. ± Growth and development should be balanced in this process. ± What I hope to see from SWSI are ways to better manage our existing water supplies. There are a lot of challenges like water quality and fishing that don?t relate to water supply. The SWSI process needs to develop new, out-of-the-box solutions. It should focus on water resource management and managing the basin?s existing resources. ± It seems that any project that should be built should be a local decision.