My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ColoradoComments31
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
ColoradoComments31
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:32:13 AM
Creation date
1/7/2008 3:51:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
Colorado
Title
Comments 31
Date
4/23/2004
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.
/
3
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 />,. <br /> <br />SWSI Colorado Basin - Demand Analysis, Project ID, and Performance Measures <br />Submitted by: Kristine Crandall, Roaring Fork Conservancy <br />April 22, 2004 <br /> <br />Demand Analysis <br /> <br />In reviewing the comments made by Western Resource Advocates and the response from <br />the SWSI, there remain several concerns in my mind about how demands are being <br />estimated: <br />o Passive consen.ration measures should include policies such as zoning and other <br />regulatory conditions, shifts in landscaping, restructuring of water rates, and other <br />conservation mechanisms that are occurring on the ground as we speak regardless <br />of the outcome ofSWSI. By not including these within estimates of future water <br />demands, the gap is being artificially inflated" <br />o There is an L'apples and oranges" comparison emerging from the approach of <br />calculating the gap based on the difference between existing and future M&I <br />demands~ Existing supply should be the benchmark against which to measure the <br />difference between what we can provide for now and what we will need in the <br />future. With the current approach, the gap, once again, is being misrepresented. <br />o The aggregation of municipal and industrial demands together into the County- <br />based per-capital consumption estimates assumes that these two types of demand <br />grow at the same rate) which is very unlikely.. For example, Pitkin County's per <br />capital water consumption estimate of 593 gallons-per-day is misleading. What is <br />the break-out between M & I, and/or between basic municipal use and resort- <br />related use? It would be much more clear and accurate to break out M & I and/or <br />the basic municipal vs" resort components, and project each demand separately for <br />each county. Otherwise, the demands will be overestimated in some areas, and <br />potentially underestimated in others where new industrial uses are projected to <br />come online within the next 30 years. <br /> <br />Project ID <br /> <br />[J Every project that is identified within SWSI needs to incorporate components to <br />conserve, protect, and restore streams/rivers and their habitats. This will establish <br />a level playing field for environmental and recreational objectives, and help <br />ensure that we adequately address the economic values associated with these <br />objectives.. <br />CI Inter-basin project options must be presented to and ranked within the roundtable <br />that is the basin of origin. Without having dialog and working across basins, it <br />will be impossible to achieve an equitable stakeholder process within SWSI. <br />o The SWSI process provides an excellent opportunity to promote and focus on <br />"Smart" water projects. Criteria that qualify a project as "smart" (and can be used <br />as a test) are provided in the Smart Water report produced by Western Resource <br />Advocates (httD:I/www.. westemresourceadvocates..org/water/smartwater.html). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.