My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Dealing With Drought Workshops Synthesis Notes
CWCB
>
Grants
>
DayForward
>
Dealing With Drought Workshops Synthesis Notes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2014 2:16:59 PM
Creation date
3/29/2011 9:23:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Grants
Applicant
University of Colorado - Western Water Assessment
Grant Type
Non-Reimbursable
Fiscal Year (i.e. 2008)
2010
Project Name
Dealing With Drought Workshops
CWCB Section
Water Conservation & Drought Planning
Related Templates
Drought Mitigation
Grants - Doc Type
Supporting Documentation
Document Relationships
Dealing With Drought Workshop Final Report
(Message)
Path:
\Drought Mitigation\DayForward
Dealing With Drought Workshops SOW
(Message)
Path:
\Grants\DayForward
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
R <br />➢ Information about long -term variability <br />Erin <br />➢ More conservative in modeling in the past <br />Chad McNutt's Group <br />Impacts of 2002 drought <br />➢ Social impact: Awareness of reduced resources, acceptance of water restrictions <br />➢ Panic among reservoir managers <br />➢ Reduced tourism <br />➢ Different perceptions of drought, slow reaction time <br />➢ Uncoordinated water restrictions /response <br />➢ Low revenue for municipalities <br />➢ Lost revenue for green industry <br />➢ Ranching /farming: U.S. Forest Service reduced permitting of livestock grazing on USFS <br />lands <br />➢ Increased fire danger, major fire season in 2002 <br />➢ Increased awareness /preparedness as a result of 2002 drought event <br />➢ Greater interest in funding water conservation initiatives <br />➢ Reduced water quality as a result of fires <br />➢ Political: Messaging was not coordinated; need better communication to public and <br />politicians <br />➢ Cost of water withdraws increased <br />What could have been avoided, done differently or is there specific information that could have <br />been helpful to avoid the negative impacts? <br />➢ Better coordination among water providers for restrictions. Role of state is to <br />coordinate a restriction schedule that makes sense. <br />➢ Better understanding of the indicators and triggers of drought and communication of <br />these to the public and policy makers. <br />➢ Water providers have better understanding of demand from their customers <br />➢ Data sharing is needed among water providers <br />➢ Must have a consistent message regarding restrictions <br />➢ No water sharing among providers <br />➢ Better forecast for agricultural sector that incorporates water rights <br />Things that went right, or impacts that were avoided <br />➢ Water sharing in Gunnison /S. Platte <br />➢ Water providers came to (albeit too late) a consistent set of restrictions (this was <br />through the Landscape Monitoring Task Force) <br />➢ People used less water, became more aware of the value of water (e.g. new tap fees of <br />— $35K) <br />➢ More water conservation in building industry <br />➢ Better water conservation planning <br />➢ Green industry educating on water efficiency <br />➢ USFS managing for drought years instead of non - drought years <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.