My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01295
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01295
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:59:47 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:52:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/19/2003
Description
OWC Section - Colorado Drought & Water Supply Assesment
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />Chapter 13: Potential Drought Mitigation Methods Supported by Water Users <br /> <br />Authors: Nina Nichols, Sanjit Kundu and Will Bailey, Resolution Research & <br />Marketing, Inc. <br /> <br />In order to provide direction to the Colorado water community, it is necessary to know <br />the types of drought programs that the community has used and would be willing to use <br />in the future, as well as the community's need for implementation support. <br /> <br />The Assessment reviewed structural and non-structural items that can be used for <br />mitigation as well as the community's preference in the State's involvement in project <br />execution, <br /> <br />Review of structural projects for managing periods of low water availability included <br />such undertakings as dam safety, reservoir dredging, storage systems (new or upgraded), <br />delivery systems and multi-basin projects. Overall, about seventy-five percent of <br />respondents supported the State's involvement in these types of structural projects. <br />Some of the non-structural projects examined by participants for drought mitigation <br />included improved conservation methods, technical support for water planning and the <br />use of cooperative agreements, This section also reviewed respondents' needs for <br />financial support for such projects as well as an intense review of respondents' desire for <br />the State's involvement and/or future development for related items. As with structural <br />projects, a majority of respondents favored the State's involvement in close to every non- <br />structural project discussed, with an overwhelming majority supporting the State's <br />contribution to technical planning. <br /> <br />5/16/2003 <br /> <br />Page 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.