BOARD00244

• Board Meeting Date: 7/23/2002
• Description: CF Section - Statewide Water Supply Investigation - Review Plan of Study
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

,

..

/Y1r. Sv/."" ",,,II'
Harold Mi~1<.et, Chair
Colorado Water Conservation Board
1313 Sherman Street, Room 721
Denver, CO 80203

.4'J~ 42?-'

Dear Mr. Chairman and members ofthe Colorado Water Conservation Board:

This letter sUU1lUarizes the initial comments of Environmental Defense, Land and Water
Fuud of the Rockies, and Trout Unlimited concerning the proposed Statewide Water
Supply Investigation (SWSI). We commend the Colorado Water Conservation Board
(CWCB) for seeking to engage in a public process for long-term water planning in
Colorado, particularly if this process is intended to support local planning efforts.

Our current drought is a wake-up call that we live in an arid landscape and that our use of
water should be judicious. We strongly support the notion of planning for Colorado's
future water needs, however, we have a number of questions about the statewide planning
approach proposed in the scope of work that the Board staff and consultants submitted to
the Board in the July 12, 2002, memorandum.

CWCB Role:

For the CWCB to take on the job of doing a statewide water plan is a fundamental change
in direction for the agency, and for water planning in Colorado. For 150 years,
Colorado's water planning has been done at the local level. Water policy experts have
always said that our water plan is in the state constitution: it is the prior appropriation
system. Unless the CWCB really wants to wrest water planning away from the local
entities who have always done this job before, the better question for the CWCB to ask
and answer with this study is; How can the state help local water providers provide water
in a more cost effective and efficient manner?

Based on the experience of the 1999 Metropolitan Water Supply Investigation (MWSI),
the answer to that question is for the state to help providers work together better. This
piece ofthe puzzle is where the CWCB should focus any planning efforts it uudertakes.

Thus, rather than developing whole alternative basin scenarios to sell to local managers,
the CWCB could perhaps construct a decision support system (DDS) that would allow
local stakeholders-water users, urban planners, wildlife managers, recreation groups,
and other interested parties-to plug in different scenarios and determine what the
impacts would be of adding yield through a particular project or set of proj ects. The
CWCB has had extensive experience over the last decade putting together DDSs for
various basins.