Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />I <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE' LAND AND WATER FUND OF THE ROCKIES' TROUT UNLIMITED <br /> <br />Importantly, local providers already are doing collaborative planning, both across the <br />mountains (e.g., the UPCO process, which involves Denver, Northern, and Colorado <br />Springs, on the one hand, and Grand and Summit Counties, on the other) and along the <br />Front Range (e.g., the South Metro WSI, which includes Denver and 24 southern metro <br />area water suppliers). Any state-wide study should facilitate these types oflocal efforts. <br /> <br />Reliabilitv <br /> <br />There is a trade-off between reliability and capacity that the proposed study seems to <br />miss entirely. If the SWSI's over-arching goal is to identify and build a reliable water <br />supply system that would meet Colorado's 2050 population's average year needs during a <br />2002-magnitude drought, without losing any agriculture, this goal would require the <br />construction of huge excess capacity (particularly ifthe 2002 drought does turn out to be <br />a 200 year event). Many communities, water providers, and members ofthe public will <br />not be interested in that goal, particularly if the study fully describes the trade-offs, such <br />as loss of recreational economy components. If this is not the goal, then the scope of <br />work should more accurately identify the goal. <br /> <br />Public Involvement & Audience <br /> <br />Public involvement in whatever study the CWCB undertakes should include <br />representation from the State's east and west slope as well as from consumptive and non- <br />consumptive water stakeholders, the latter group including, but not limited to, state and <br />federal fish and wildlife experts, members ofthe water recreation industry, and <br />conservation groups. <br /> <br />The audience for any study should include those who manage environmental and water <br />quality, recreation, wildlife, and protected lands. The current scope of works suggests a <br />more limited audience of only "water managers, water users, and the public" (pp. I & 4). <br />Water supply decisions will inevitably bear on Colorado's rivers, and the audience for <br />this planning process should include those who manage rivers for values other than water <br />supply. <br /> <br />Water Demand <br /> <br />If the CWCB is determined to identify not only current but also potential future demands, <br />such forecasts should include a range of potential demands for new water supplies based <br />on different (i.e., improving) scenarios of water use efficiency by current and future water <br />users. The groundwork for analyzing some of these scenarios can be found in the MWSI, <br />the Denver Board of Water Commissioners' Integrated Resource Plan (1997; revised in <br />2002); and the study done for Denver by Maddaeus et al. (2001). Implementing <br />strategies that decrease per capita water use (in the residential, commercial, industrial, <br />and agricultural sectors) and use of non-structural supply options may turn out to be the <br />most effective means of meeting the future water needs in many of Colorado's <br />communities. <br /> <br />3 <br />