Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />T bl 3 Anal . <br /> <br />dIm I <br /> <br />a e : IlysIS an lplementation <br />Analvsis or Implementation Included in Plan Not Included in Plan <br />Selection of Measures and Pro~ams Made 58 0 <br />Public Participation in Plan Development 53 5 <br />Work Plan 40 18 <br />Funds Dedicated for Plan 25 33 <br />Monitoring and Evaluation 25 33 <br />Potential Savings 21 37 <br />Benefits and Costs 9 49 <br />Staff Identified 7 51 <br />Modification of Forecasts 5 53 <br /> <br />The information provided in Table 3 above indicates that although all covered entities chose <br />conservation measures and programs to include in their plans, few described how they made <br />their selections or how they intended to implement or monitor their plans. Less than half of the <br />covered entities showed that funds were dedicated to implement water conservation measures <br />and programs. Less than half of the covered entities included plans to monitor or evaluate the <br />effectiveness of their conservation actions. And less than half of the covered entities present the <br />analysis they used to select conservation measures (such as a benefit-cost analysis or estimation <br />of potential savings in acre feet or million gallons). Only four plans include information on how <br />anticipated water savings modify their future water need forecasts (e.g., showing how the water <br />saved through conservation measures counts as a water supply source). These numbers <br />demonstrate that while a plan has been written, with some level of public participation, it is <br />unclear how the plan was developed and how it was to be implemented or monitored. <br /> <br />Inventory of Water Providers with and without Conservation Plans <br />It is essential in developing a strategy to clearly understand who provides water and how they <br />have participated in water conservation planning efforts. Questions include: <br /> <br />. Which entities have and have not completed water conservation plans? <br />. Where are these entities located? <br />. How much water do these entities use/ deliver? <br />. How would varying the minimum water use/delivery thresholds impact the total number <br />and distribution of entities involved in planning? <br />. What percentage of total water used/delivered in Colorado is captured through <br />conservation planning at different acre-feet thresholds for planning requirements? <br /> <br />Following are maps and tables of water providers in Colorado with indications of who does and <br />does not have a plan on file with the CWCB. Figure 1 illustrates potential candidates for water <br />conservation planning according to amount of water used/delivered. Water providers have <br />been divided into three categories: <br /> <br />. Greater than 2,000 acre-feet annual use/delivery <br />. From 1,500 to 2,000 acre-feet annual use/ delivery <br />. From 1,000 to 1,500 acre-feet annual use / delivery <br /> <br />6 <br />