Laserfiche WebLink
<br />inventory that you have requested, nor should they be expected to. That is your <br />responsibility · We are more than willing to help in anyway that we can. Establishing the <br />environmental "demands" for a healthy river is every bit as important as establishing the <br />"demandu for M&I or Agriculture. <br /> <br />This brings up the point I made last night about data collection. It seems that anytime <br />anyone on the Roundtable brings up sources of information that have not been considered <br />the response is that that individual or group should supply that information to you. That <br />is completely backwards. It is the SWSI and COM's responsibility to consider all of the <br />information that is relevant to the process. I would hope that your $3 million budget is <br />going to more than just fancy power point meetings. The implication seems to be that if <br />we do not gather and present all of the overlooked data it will not be included in the study <br />and final report. This is irresponsible at best and grossly negligent at worst. Ignoring <br />pertinent information simply because it was overloo~ especially after being brought to <br />your attention, could completely invalidate the SWSI fmdings and results. It certainly <br />invalidates any claim to objective science that the process might have. The Roundtable <br />has the duty to bring these things to your attention so that they are not overlooked. That <br />does not mean it is then the Roundtable's job to do the heavy lifting and get all that data <br />for you. Again, that is your responsibility and that's what CDM is being paid for. <br /> <br />Other data concerns involve how some of the "demand" numbers are reached. I seriously <br />question the validity of a conclusion that assumes a County opeD of 592.5 for Pitkin <br />County and only 162.3 for Mesa County. Even with the resort and tourist factor I think <br />these numbers are utterly unreasonable" The tourist industry and visitor numbers are not <br />growing as fast as residential numbers, not by a long shot. Skier numbers have been flat <br />for 20 years. Summer recreation and visitors are growing, but not that fast How much <br />and what kind of water does a tourist use anyway? How about use by "day trip" tourists <br />from the Front Range as opposed to the longer term destination tourists? Time-share <br />condos must be considered as a unit, not by the number of owners they might have. <br />Tourists are not irrigating landscaping, the bulk of residential water use. Agricultural <br />rights and diversions in the headwater counties is shrinking, not staying steady as you <br />assume. Any new subdivision obtains the Ag rights for the hayfields that they are going <br />to plant houses on. These rights are then transferred to the municipal or district water <br />provider and is lost as Ag water. As M&I demands increase and as coDSenration and <br />efficiency take hold Ag uses will likely drop in the other parts of the basin as well. <br /> <br />I may be wrong, but the resort county OPCD numbers seem highly inflated and suspect. <br />I again caution you not to have the appearance of "cooking the books" to justify some <br />pre-determined outcome. Full disclosure as to the sources off all data is mandatory as <br />well as full disclosure as to the reasoning behind the numbers. And they must be <br />defendable under rigorous peer review. Again, to exclude these disclosures will <br />invalidate any findings that the fmal report makes and will compromise any pretence of <br />objective science that S WSI may make. There seems to be a lot of concern about validity <br />of the data among Roundtable participants so I urge you to take this mater seriously. <br />