Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LESSONS LEARNED <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The following spreadsheets and graphs on pages (9-20) show: the entities identified as requiring <br />water conservation plans and which conservation measures the entities chose to consider for <br />implementation (See Appendix B). Each plan is site specific and tailored to meet the needs of the <br />entity. The OWC surveyed the entities that had submitted plans for acceptance to the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board. In general, plans w~re influenced by the following factors: <br /> <br />~ The type of public comment period selected by the community (notice vs. public forum) directly <br />affected the outcome of measures selected to implement in the plans. Greater public <br />involvement produced plans that chose to implement more of the water conservation measures. <br /> <br />~ The economic benefit analysis of the measures had a direct affect upon which measures <br />selected to implement. Many communities do not have the budget for implementing measures, <br />therefore, low cost measures may have been selected <br /> <br />~ The water conservation expertise available on staff. A diverse group of personnel with other <br />qualifications (sometimes unrelated to water use efficiency) were asked to provide the <br />community with a draft plan. <br /> <br />~ Voluntary efforts - entities could choose to implement none of the measures, again plans were <br />site specific. This was consistent with our non-regulatory approach but provided limited results <br /> <br />~ The lack of exact science involved with many of these measures, and general lack of baseline <br />data prevented most communities from being able to analyze the potential water savings. <br />Further studies for monitoring these measures would be helpful. <br /> <br />. RESULTS <br /> <br />In 1991, there were but a handful of communities with water conservation plans. Now there are 60 <br />communities that have plans or in the process of completing plans. <br /> <br />The requirements for planning in HB 91-1154 were a start in the right direction in 1991. A <br />voluntary effort for water conservation planning has proved to be beneficial, shown by the amount <br />of plans we have received. We consider these plans a tool for entities in their overall water supply <br />development. As with any voluntary effort you will have some entities that choose not to comply. <br />However, some entities went from the water supply planning perspective and provided excellent <br />water use efficiency plans (See Appendix A). <br /> <br />Water use efficiency plans are site specific. Given the variables described above, anticipated water <br />savings vary from plan to plan. Each year the OWC program continues to identify additional <br />entities whose delivery of water reaches the 2,000-acre foot level and thereby come under HB 91- <br />1154 requirement. OWC provided information and technical assistance to help them comply with <br />the law. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The water use efficiency planning portion of the statutory requirements has been integrated as a <br />high priority for the CWCB and the CWPDA. It requires at least one staff person to provide <br />technical and planning assistance, research, on site visits, and review of plans. More than <br />804,787-acre feet of water is subject to our water use efficiency planning requirement. OWC <br />anticipates an additional 1 O,OOO-acre feet annually to be affected by this planning requirement in <br />1998. <br /> <br />7 <br />