My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ColoradoComments27
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
ColoradoComments27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:32:12 AM
Creation date
1/7/2008 3:40:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
Colorado
Title
Comments 27
Date
2/9/2004
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.
/
2
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 />boating activities (Fryingpan Valley Economic Study, report on Vail and Breckenridge kayak <br />courses). <br /> <br />2. Although proposals for new water projects typically must show increasing levels of <br />conservation practices to be successful, SWSI does not consider demand reduction associated <br />with conservation in projecting future demands~ Studies have shown a 7% reduction in per <br />capita use from 1994 to 2001. <br /> <br />3. SWSI has not adopted adequate and consistent criteria for designating potential water <br />projects as a Tier 1, 2, or 3 project. Further, Basin Roundtable members are very confused about <br />the underlying rationale for and purpose of these designations, so they are providing mixed up <br />recommendations~ . <br /> <br />4. The consultant and staff to SWSI should be researching and providing clear information <br />on potential water projects, rather than relying on initial Roundtable suggestions. The <br />Roundtable members will then be in a better position to make educated decisions on the ranking <br />of the options themselves~ As it is, the process has mixed together a disjointed combination of <br />water development projects that are ready for implementation, and potential alternatives <br />identified in on-going studies. In addition, SWSI has ranked this mixture of water projects, <br />without first engaging in any rigorous evaluation of future water needs, further confusing the <br />process and its goals by ~'putting the cart before the horse.'~ <br /> <br />5. There appears to be double accounting of agricultural and urban water use demands~ <br />Much of the future urban demand on the Front Range will be satisfied by water converted from <br />use on agricultural lands that are subsequently taken out of production; however, SWSI assumes <br />that agricultural demand will remain constant, even though water and land will be transferred <br />from agricultural use to municipal use. This situation puts unnecessary pressure on SWSI to find <br />West Slope water projects to satisfy unrealistic future Front Range demands~ <br /> <br />6. The methodology for determining municipal and industrial demands does not adequately <br />incorporate the significant seasonal fluctuations in population associated with the resort <br />communities located in the headwaters of the Colorad~ River basin. For example, Summit <br />County's permanent population is approximately 27,000 but because of intense tourism, over <br />100,000 people may be demanding water at one time. <br /> <br />7. Information on SWSI meetings and background documentation is not made available to <br />the public in a timely manner. Mechanisms for incorporating meaningful public input are <br />missing from tp.e SWSI Basin Roundtable meetings~ <br /> <br />Sincerely, N <br /> <br />CJ:::::rry eW~ <br /> <br />Grand County Commissioner <br />Chairman, Water Quality/Quantity Committee <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.