My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CODroughtPlanSurvey-2000
CWCB
>
Drought Mitigation
>
DayForward
>
CODroughtPlanSurvey-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2010 3:08:10 PM
Creation date
4/29/2010 2:18:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Drought Mitigation
Title
Colorado Drought Plan Survey
Date
1/15/2000
Description
2000 Drought Document
Basin
Statewide
Drought Mitigation - Doc Type
Reports
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
7.0 Discussion <br />One of the most noticeable similarities in conversations with water managers was that both cities <br />and water conservancy districts are not looking into the future. It was apparent that many of the <br />conservancy districts have put little thought into drought planning. Many municipal water conservation <br />and drought plans were very simple or "band aid" solutions consisting of voluntary lawn watering <br />restrictions and educational programs. While this might slightly reduce demand in the short term, it does <br />not address the real dynamics of supply and demand during a severe sustained drought. <br />It was evident that cities had more types of planning documents but also thought that drought <br />planning was a good idea and that they were behind in that area. Some of the limitations to drought <br />planning expressed by some of the districts were lack of money in their budgets, not actually owning but <br />conveying water, and the Tabor Amendment. Many districts are small operations with little funds that <br />operate on verbal agreements. While questioning we heard many times that "that is the way we have <br />always done it." <br />General comments showed varying level of information but often helped paint a clearer picture of <br />their role in water management in their area. In many cases the general comments showed: how far along <br />in the water planning process, what types of water management plans they had, the types of water users, <br />and the methods and determinations they use to in times of drought. What was surprising was that, while <br />many districts had developed methods and verbal arrangements to manage water during drought, they <br />often had not formally set triggers for drought responses in certain situations. <br />An underlying theme found while surveying was that water management is set up so users draw <br />more in wet years and less in dry years. It is evident that this type of arrangement may work in short dry <br />periods but may yield problems in extended drought episodes. We asked a few that responded this way <br />what would happen at the end of a two or three year drought, and they indicated that they would be in <br />trouble. <br />Some of the cities and water conservancy districts indicated that they would appreciate help in <br />drought planning and would rely heavily on state assistance to do so. Districts that indicated they would <br />like a good model of drought planning were the Grand Mesa WCD and the Lower South Platte WCD, <br />Michigan River WCD, Upper Gunnison River WCD. <br />One district stated that state and federal agencies and laws, specifically the Endangered Species <br />Act, have made it very hard to plan, implement, and complete water projects. Small cities and districts <br />are often up against major opposition when trying to work with state and federal agencies. <br />A reoccurring response from the water conservancy district managers was that their shareholders <br />have paid for their water and have the idea that they should use every drop since they have paid for it. <br />There is no incentive for conservation and only sometimes concern for the guy down the river, a direct <br />product of our "first in time first in right" water system. In many cases, if a user holds a senior water right <br />they will get the water and the burden of drought falls on those downstream. A repeated statement was, <br />"we are at the headwaters so why worry. An obstacle to surviving drought might be overcoming this <br />mentality to shared the burden equally during drought periods. <br />At least three of the districts consider themselves as defunct organizations. The reason for this <br />was that they formed as part of a water project that never materialized or that they do not own anything <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.