Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />I <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Conclusions: <br /> <br />We draw the following conclusions on the basis oftheinformation in this paper: <br /> <br />I. There is a wide range of best-management, water-conservation practices that <br />Front Range water providers can use to maximize use of existing water <br />supplies. Some metro area providers are implementing some of these <br />conservation practices already, but we could be doing much more. <br /> <br />2. There is also a wide range of supply-side water efficiency practices, such as <br />better system integration, conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies <br />and other measures that can stretch existing supplies even further. <br /> <br />3. These efficiency measures usually are superior environmentally to new dams <br />or large-scale diversion facilities, especially those that would serve to import <br />more water from the West Slope. Efficiency measures also have cost <br />advantages and can be carried-out more quickly than new "structural" <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />4. Colorado water policy should focus on demand- and supply-side water use <br />efficiency as a solution to the current drought and 10ng-telU1 water shortages <br />before it launches a major program to use taxpayers' money directly or our <br />collective borrowing power on new dams and facilities, especially to import <br />water from the West Slope. <br /> <br />5. How the state can encourage greater water use efficiency is a matter that <br />deserves measured and thorough consideration by all the stakeholders <br />involved, certainly Front Range urban water providers, West Slope interests, <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board, environm:ental organizations and <br />many others. This consideration can take place with the prospect that a plan <br />for such encouragement could be developed for, and reviewed in, the next, <br />regular legislative session. <br /> <br />8 <br />