Laserfiche WebLink
<br />About Conservancy Districts <br /> <br />Although sometimes frustrating In Its lack of specificity, the Water Conservancy Act <br />provides conservancy districts with a good deal of interpretive fiexlbility. This Is <br />evidenced by the variation In conservancy districts throughout the state. Conservancy <br />districts function primarily as wholesalers of water. They ordinarily operate storage <br />facl1ltles and supply water to irrigation enterprises, large Industrial firms and <br />municipalities. One of the original reasons for the establishment of conservancy <br />districts was the need to form a contracting entity which could enter Into agareements <br />with Federal govetnment for the construction and repayment of large water projects. <br /> <br />Today, conservancy districts run the gamut In terms of geographical area, staff, <br />budget, board make-up, and goals and objectives. As I mentioned above, there are <br />over 45 individual conservancy districts actively working on local, regional, and <br />statewide water resources Issues. Conservancy districts have Wstorlcally worked to <br />represent the needs of their local constituents at the state level through lobbying and <br />participating In the development of legislation. Approximately 22 districts currently <br />have some sort of staff. A number of districts cover large drainage areas, such as the <br />Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the Southeastern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy District, the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District, the Upper <br />Arkansas River Water Conservancy District, and the Upper Gunnison River Water <br />Conservancy District. <br /> <br />Conservancy district activities and priorities vary tremendously. For example, the <br />Upper Gunnison District has recently directed most of Its resources toward protection <br />of the basin from out-of-basln water transfer proposals. The Lower South Platte <br />District Is embroiled in the implementation of the three-state agreement addressing <br />compact delivery requirements at the Colorado-Nebraska state line. The Northern <br />Colorado District Is working on addressing sWfts In water demand and supply <br />development, the Southeastern District is planning for future water needs while trying <br />to balance rural and urban constituencies, and the Animas-LaPlata District continues <br />to work on resolving the Anlmas-LaPlata Project dilemma. Some districts focus on <br />water delivery and project operation activities, some are providing services to meet <br />municipal/domestic water needs only, and some are focused primarily on meeting <br />irrigation water requirements. A goal common to most conservancy districts Is the <br />desire to address current and future water needs. <br /> <br />Water Resources Mana~ement Observations <br /> <br />The tools are already in place to address most of the water resources management <br />challenges we face. For example, management areas that are well covered Include <br />providing water service and treatment, and allocating existing water supplies to <br />historic uses. However, there are water allocation and management questions that do <br />not make for an easy'fit Into our existing system. These issues were Identified in part <br />during the previous two-years of discussion regarding proposed legislation entitled the <br />Water Resources Act. The proposed legislation would have set up basinwide planning <br />entities, addressed basin-of-orlgln mitigation Issues, and defined a state role in the <br />process of water planning and management. The language reflected the need to better <br />address issues such as: <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />