Laserfiche WebLink
supplies and existing and projected demands through the year <br />was a preordained outcome of SWSI to justify new large <br />2030, as well as a range of potential options to meet that transbasin diversions. <br />demand. This information will help local communities and <br />Against this backdrop, SWSI faced challenges but made <br />water providers as they work to plan, manage, and ef ficiently <br />significant progress developing a comprehensive view of our <br />use Colorado's surface and groundwater resources. <br />water supply issues and our water future. However , it is also <br />This document provides a brief overview of the results of a important to note that while the Basin Roundtable members <br />comprehensive and complex study . A more detailed overview helped guide the SWSI process, their involvement should not <br />is provided in the Executive Summary , and all supporting be construed as full endorsement of all of the findings, <br />information and data can be found in the full report. Finally , for recommendations, and information presented. <br />those most interested in implementation, you are encouraged <br />W ater has long been a divisive issue in the W est, and thus it <br />to see Section 1 1 of the report. <br />was important for this study to establish certain ground rules at <br />the very outset that included: <br />Stakeholder Process <br /> Local authority and control would not be replaced <br />+ <br />The overall objective of SWSI is to help Colorado maintain an <br /> Bottom-up, not top-down <br />adequate water supply for its citizens and the environment. <br />+ <br />SWSI is not intended to take the place of local water planning <br />All solutions explored <br />+ <br />ef forts. Rather , it is a “forum” to develop a common <br />Adherence to Colorado's Doctrine of Prior Appropriation <br />understanding of existing water supplies and future water <br />+ <br />supply needs and demands throughout Colorado, and possible <br />T wo additional ground rules were set after commencement of <br />means of meeting those needs. T o help accomplish this goal, <br />the study . First, it was determined that the initial 18-month <br />local interest groups and water experts were assembled in <br />study would not evaluate transbasin diversion issues. This <br />each of Colorado's eight major river basins. These “Basin <br />issue is highly charged, and would have threatened the ability <br />Roundtables” included municipal users, agricultural users, <br />of SWSI to produce meaningful results in the initial 18-month <br />local governments, water conservation and conservancy <br />study period. Instead, the CWCB determined it would be most <br />districts, recreational and environmental interests, and the <br />productive to focus on in-basin solutions first and undertake a <br />business community . <br />subsequent ef fort in 2005 to focus on issues that reach across <br />river basin boundaries. Second, following a tradition of local <br />The focus of the Basin Roundtable meetings was information <br />control over water planning, SWSI would not judge or evaluate <br />exchange on water use and on consensus building. SWSI was <br />the merits or likelihood of success of any of the projects or <br />an important first step in developing open communication <br />processes being pursued at the local level. Having the state <br />across a wide range of interests in each basin. However , the <br />evaluate each project or process and determine which are <br />18-month study period made it dif ficult to explore all issues in <br />winners and losers would have extended state authority far <br />detail and to develop trust, a cornerstone of SWSI that was <br />beyond what it has ever been in water decision-making in this <br />essential to its success. As SWSI was launched, it was met <br />state, and would have jeopardized SWSI from the very outset. <br />with support and the expressed need to work together , but it <br />As a result, what is presented in the report is a catalogue of <br />was also met with skepticism that local needs and interests <br />the solutions advanced by local providers. <br />would not be respected. Many water providers did not support <br />state involvement in water supply planning. Smaller <br />SWSI can teach us a great deal. SWSI is the most far-reaching <br />communities and less-populated portions of the state were <br />and comprehensive ef fort ever undertaken to understand our <br />concerned that their economic, social, and cultural future could <br />state's water supplies as well as the state's existing and future <br />be “sacrificed” for the needs of urban areas. Environmental <br />water demands. As a result of this study , we know more today <br />and recreational interests expressed concern that the process <br />about Colorado's current and future water use than we have <br />was intended to push for the development of new water <br />ever known before. For example, we know significantly more <br />storage projects at the expense of the environment or <br />about: <br />recreation. W est Slope communities were fearful that there <br />1 1 – – Initial Findings Initial Findings <br />2 2 – – Near Near - - T T erm Action erm Action Items Items 3 3 – – Long Long - - T T erm Action erm Action Items Items <br />Supply and Demand In Supply and Demand In - - Basin Solutions Basin Solutions <br />Cross Basin Issue and Opportunities Cross Basin Issue and Opportunities Ongoing Implementation Ongoing Implementation <br />Phase 1 Phase 1 – – June 2004 June 2004 - - December 2004 December 2004 <br />Phase 2 Phase 2 – – December 2004 December 2004 - - July 2005 July 2005 Phase 3 Phase 3 – – July 2005 forward July 2005 forward <br />Implementation of SWSI will T ake Place in Three Major Phases <br />