BOARD01670

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

.

Comparison of Colorado's Statutory Requirements and CWCB's Stated "Criteria for Acceptance"
to Requirements for Other States
Status of
Planning Step Colorado Comments
Policies
1. Profile water system Lagging No requirements for meaningful review of system
infrastructure and supplv plans
2. Characterize water use; Lagging No requirements for demand forecasting or any
forecast demand sectoral or temporal analvsis of water use
3. Identify conservation goals Favorable CO requires a general statement of the role of
conservation in the entity's water supply planning,
which implies goal identification
4. Identify relevant Favorable CO requires consideration of most major categories
conservation measures & (though none are required to be implemented, in
programs contrast to several states)
5. Evaluate & select measures Lagging No directives to identify water savings, costs, or other
& programs criteria relevant to selection
6. Integrate supply and Lagging No revisions to demand forecasts or other analyses of
demand-side resources; conservation effects on the overall water system are
modifv forecasts reauired
7. Develop implementation Lagging No requirement for a schedule or identification of
Dlan necessary resources
8. Monitor, evaluate, & revise Favorable CWCB criteria require a process for monitoring and
evaluation (unlike most states). However, many plans
have been accepted without this.

.

Summary
CWCB has on record 58 approved water conservation plans submitted by covered entities in
response to existing statutes and CWCB rules and policies. These 58 covered entities control/manage
nearly 50% of the water diverted for non-irrigation and non-storage uses in the State.

Unfortunately, there are other covered entities (at least 17) that use or divert over 2,000 acre-feet of
water per year that do not have approved water conservation plans. In addition, those entities that
have submitted plans do not necessarily indicate a commitment to water conservation. In fact, the
majority of the approved water conservation plans, which were submitted to the CWCB between
1995 and 1997 before the current Director of the Office of Water Conservation joined the organization,
do not indicate to what degree water conservation measures are supported by local authorities or to
what degree water conservation measures are to be implemented. None of the plans have been
revisited since their initial submittal because current statutes do not require updating or follow-up.

In addition, Colorado's current conservation planning policies (statute, approval criteria, and plan
guidelines) fall short of assuring plans are of "good and consistent" quality and that they are effective
in achieving meaningful water conservation.

.

Developing the strategy for providing technical assistance to covered entities for purposes of
increasing both the number and the quality of water conservation plans will need to take into account
the statute and policy issues that currently influence how and why covered entities interact with the
CWCB.

5