BOARD01670

• Board Meeting Date: 7/28/2003
• Description: CDP Section - Technical Assistance to Covered Entities
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

Summary of Water UselDelivery Impacted by Conservation Planning
I Number of Entities I Percent of Water
Existing Plans
> 2,000 acre-feet 56 I 46%
> 1,500 acre-feet I 58 I 46.2%
Non-Participating Municipalities
> 2,000 acre-feet 10 5.2%
> 1,500 acre-feet 23 6.4%
> 1,000 acre-feet 36 7.2%
Non-Participating Special Districts
> 2,000 acre-feet >7 0.9%
> 1,500 acre-feet >13 1.5%
> 1,000 acre-feet >21 2.0%

,
Percent of water based on non-irrigation and non-storage deliveries from Cumulative Yearly Statistics of the Colorado
Division of Water Resources, 200]
'*
Excludes over 200 special districts that do not have population or water use data available

Other Western State Policies and the "State of the Science"
Eight of the 11 continental western states have requirements for local entities to prepare water
conservation plans. The Bureau of Reclamation also requires plans of many project contractors, and
the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated voluntary guidelines. Compared to these
other policies, Colorado's statute and the guidelines of the CWCB compare as follows:

.

.

Colorado's policy is the oldest.
Through binding requirements (four states) or voluntary guidelines (two more states, BOR,
and EP A), most other states provide substantially more detail on their expectations and
recommendations for local conservation plans.
Excepting California, Colorado has the highest size threshold for covered entities.
Several states (not including Colorado) vary some rules based on water system size or local
water availability
Colorado compares favorably to many other states in having a strong public participation
requirement, state power to accept or reject submitted plans, and a specific requirement that a
plan be implemented. However, Colorado's policies related to how plans are reviewed and
accepted, and ramifications for not adhering to the requirements are not well developed.
Colorado lags behind many states in having no requirement for periodic updating of a plan or
reporting of implementation progress, and in not connecting conservation plans to drought
response.

.

.

.

.

.

Relative to the "state of the science" for a logical conservation planning process!, Colorado's statutory
requirements and CWCB's stated "criteria for acceptance" compare to other states' requirements as
presented in the table2 on the following page.

.

I The eight steps presented here are synthesized from key literature in the conservation-planning field.
2 The CWCB's related voluntary guidelines for plans are minimal and provide little additional direction.

4