Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />r <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE. LAND AND WATER FUND OF THE ROCKIES. TROUT UNLIMITED <br /> <br />The CWCB has the expertise in-house and the local water planning community is <br />comfortable with the CWCB's role in this regard. Rather than usurp the role oflocal <br />water managers, the CWCB could fill in the gaps that exist in current planning by <br />developing a support tool and helping local managers identify additional options to <br />assess. As noted in the May2002 Preliminary Scope of Work, a tool that can factor in <br />the technical, economical, financial, and environmental feasibility of options would be <br />particularly useful. Local use of such a tool is the only way to build political and social <br />acceptance for specific options. <br /> <br />Another role the State could play is to help local communities and/or collaborative efforts <br />evaluate systemic environmental impacts. Numerous aquatic and terrestrial species <br />depend on Colorado's creeks and rivers. Thus, any CWCB study would be incomplete <br />without a description of wildlife and the extent to which they depend on the state's water <br />resources. Any study also should gauge the impact of new structural development on <br />downstream river ecosystems and how this impact might be mitigated. This will be an <br />important consideration in the assessment of any alternatives in the Rio Grande, <br />Colorado, and Platte basins. <br /> <br />A Model from the Recent Past: <br /> <br />The MWSI grew out of a meeting called by the governor and attended by all metro-area <br />water providers and other interested members of the public. In the MWSr, the state role <br />was to identify opportunities to increase water supplies by working with local water <br />providers. That should be the model for any similar process with the goal of addressing <br />supply state-wide. <br /> <br />In the MWSI process, the Department of Natural Resources took the lead, although the <br />CWCB and State Engineers Office were actively involved. The state contractor <br />(Hydrosphere) studied system integration and collaborative planning to increase firm <br />yield to the metro area. Because of the collaborative nature of the effort, the process took <br />four years. The state contractor had to obtain and use information from local providers <br />and get their agreement. Where local providers did not want to collaborate or share <br />information, study results were necessarily limited. Although the process was time- <br />consuming and sometimes cumbersome, ultimately, the study produced a road map, <br />much of which is still in use, at a cost ofless than $500,000. <br /> <br />CWCB Proposal: <br /> <br />To plan from the state level and then impose those results from the top-down will likely <br />exacerbate, not calm, the state's always-simmering water wars. The CWCB could end up <br />with an expensive study that has no buy-in from those who actually supply or use water. <br />This would almost certainly occur were the state to pursue Objective #2, where the <br />CWCB would not only identifv new demands in each river basin, but prioritize them. <br /> <br />2 <br />