Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />The Tribnn,e Democrat <br /> <br /> <br />Thursday, January 8, 2004 <br /> <br />ICOnsei1suS'wa~e~ planning <br />effort continues" <br /> <br />JlyllODNEY1IAII\1l jeds 1hroughout Colorado. It has been long recogni2eQ <br />. . SWS1, creaIed by the Cokmulo llul.t water providers must come <br />: ~ StItewide Waler Supply WalerConsenation Board. is an together in some n~DtraI. Iorwu <br />I~ met fur the seall!d atll'Inpttoidenll(ywaterprnjects. and pool ideas which will best <br />lime Wednesday afIerDoon m bestsui1edlDcarrythestrteinlD use Coiondo's finite water <br />Pueblo fur the ]IUJJIOlIe of galh- 10 2030 and beymuI. resources. With gr<ll'o1h expect. <br />eriug inJnrt on vxious water pro-. ell in. erery area o! ClI1otado, <br />and water resourteS in greater <br />d<mand, everyone in the state <br />mllSl pull in lite same direction <br />to accommodate the largest <br />number of people. With slate <br />funding also Iimlted, water pro. <br />jecls must be identifiM whiclt <br />will rebJru the greatest advan- <br />lage per dollar spent <br />. SWSI is such. forum, where <br />water providers !rom all over <br />the state galh er, brainstorm <br />ideas, and ""enwally arrive at <br />conclusions which will be used <br />by slale officials in deciding <br />where to spend funds. SWSf. <br />crOsses aver basin boundaries <br />in an attempt to look at the "big <br />picture" ~e. The fO':I'iJl !s <br />seeking public mpul, which III <br />turn will be used to rare each <br />water project in renns of value <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />to the most ]le<Jple, and and olhers. Th.ese ratings will be <br />Colorado in general gathered into an overall rating <br />. Municipal, agricultural, rcere- value for each project, and <br />. ational, environmental and many brought back to the furum at the <br />olber conoerns all seek a portion next meeting. <br />of Colorado's waler. All these Once projects Ihroughout the <br />needs and .ooocerns are :factored stale are identified and rated, <br />mID a rating formula which hope. alternatives and modifications <br />fulJy will identify viable water will be presented and discus1ed. <br />projecto which mosl can agree This is the negolialion phase, <br />upon. when everyone 31the roundtable <br />CWCB has retUned the con. must consider the needs of otlr <br />. suiting Jirm Camp Dresser & e.rs, and deOrle what portion his <br />McKee, Inc. of Denver to galber area is willing tD give up tD attain <br />data on projected water nse in a projectwhich will aid their area <br />Colorado and identify various in the future. Instead of bitterly <br />water projects already being con- opposing a project that seems to <br />'sidered The second meeting of harm a ""te:r u='s area, per.. <br />the SWSI group Wednesday was 1laps an alternative can be fOUIld <br />part of this data gathering pro- thatis. win-win solution. <br />cess. .An example is the southern <br />CDM gave a JeiJgthy slide pre- delivery system proposed by <br />5elltJtion explaining tD process Colorado Springs to build a large <br />used to rate each project Eaclt diameter pipeJine from fueblG <br />participant determines a pro- Reservoir to the Fikes Peak <br />ject's value based on the project's region. While residents of <br />importance. using ~"!! consi<!- Puebloseelheprojectasapotm- <br />erations as enst, reliabUlty, enVI- <br />ronmental Cllnceros, flexibility <br />