7777 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

providers. With the Front Range Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water Authority, the spirit of that cooperation continues to exist. In the northern communities, under the auspices of the Northern Conservancy District, a fair amount of cooperation exists and an actual market exists for water to be shared, bought and sold. The northern cities cooperated to develop the Windy Gap project, so I think the competition that we were talking about refers mainly to how the water systems operate in their competition for water. The resulting competition, which is what the Prior Appropriation Doctrine requires as a minimum, may not necessarily lead to the most optimum allocation of that water for everyone's benefit. Written questions and comments for Lee Rozaklis 1. How can water planning move beyond the "technocratic water policy echelon" into full integration of all affected stakeholders (agriculture, M and I, environmental, legal, recreational, etc.)? Can the "dis-information" cloud be removed? 2. Will subsequent drafts of your report include a description of successful cooperation by entities along the Front Range, such as those mentioned by Mayor Carpenter and others? (COSMIC, SLOC, Thornton/WSSC, NWCD/CRWCD Windy Gap, Blue River, etc.) Wouldn't your document by more complete if it also included the successful implementation of cooperative agents? 3. (1) Can the assets of those who have rights, storage and delivery systems be optimized through integration? (i.e. Northern, DWD) (2) Can the sovereignty over water supplies and rights for the future be protected? 4. (1) You and other speakers have talked about the "competition" between Front Range municipal water systems. Would you please describe two or three instances of such competition? (2) Don't the "interruptible supply" or "first use" agreements require the same type of burdensome water court proceedings as are required of the straight- forward change proceedings? 5. Could the "emergency loan statute" be invoked through the State Engineer's Office as an alternative way as against a more costly "change in water right case" through the courts to provide the framework to effect an interruptible supply? 6. Comment: the plan for urban use of ag. water during drought years through a "lease" type process with farmers would not be practical or feasible for irrigated farmers with livestock operations. These farmers need water to produce feed for their operations and are not in a situation to "turn on or off" their water at the request of urban users. It would also create crop rotation problems and the agri- business impacts would be extremely great. Agriculture is simply not a business that can start and stop without creating costs that the cities simply couldn't afford. 37