BOARD01670

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

e

.

e

process. One entity is following goals set to meet regional use reductions and another is
working together with other communities to develop consistent methods.
. Few communities hild specific information on cost to develop and implement plans. Costs
for plan preparation range from no additional spending (written by existing staff) to
anticipated updates costing approximately $20,000. Implementation costs range from $5,000
to $500,000 dollars. Many communities noted that costs are lower if the focus remains on
education and rise if capital expenditures or enforcement of regulations is needed.
. All communities monitor the benefits and impacts of their water conservation plans. Some
track very specific data, even looking at end use in homes, while others compare current
usage with historical usage (either through metered deliveries or total pumping). All are at
least considering tracking use on a daily basis.
. When asked about the State role in water conservation planning, specifically how they
would use State resources, all suggested at least one role the State should assume or issue
the State should address. One entity responded that they wanted to rely mostly on local
funding for measures but that they do use CSU extension services. All others emphasized
that the State could commit funds and other resources for measures such as workshops and
publications on topics such as effective landscaping measures and programs. Several
communities stressed that consistency is crucial across Colorado and that the State has an
important role in promoting consistency in water conservation planning and
implementation.
. When asked what specific issues regarding water conservation planning they would like
to share with the State, several responses emerged. Two individuals mentioned a need for
assistance in understanding technical questions such as specifics of hydrogeology and the
interplay between conservation and drought response. Others emphasized a need for a
coordinating role and accountability at a State level. Two individuals mentioned that the
success of water conservation planning is determined by all water users and that the State
can help all communities to be effectively involved in conserving water. One mentioned that
the State has a role in securing more storage.

Key Observations
In reviewing the water conservation plans on file with the CWCB and exploring who the water
providers are that have not filed water conservation plans with the State of Colorado, several
key observations have surfaced.

In relation to the plans, it is clear that:

. Given the number of submitted plans and the timing of those plans in relation to HB 91-
1154, it appears that statutory requirements do promote plan development for covered
entities seeking state funds.
. Statutory requirements for conservation measures are integrated into the majority of those
plans on file.
. There is substantial variability among the approved water conservation plans.
. There are no indications that approved plans have been implemented.
. Most plans have no identification of "measurable" goals.

11