BOARD02155

• Board Meeting Date: 11/23/1998
• Description: Western Water Policy Review Commission - Final Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

.

.

Colorado Water Conservation Board
Department of Natural Resources
721 Centennial Building
1 31 3 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: {303l 866-3441
fAX: [phone]

STATE OF COLORADO

"

I

No" '1~ etrle-e ~

December 19, 1997

-:!F\q

Roy Rom~r
. Covernol

Jil.mes S. lochheil.d
ExeClJtive Director. ONR

DariesC.liJe, P.E.
Director. eWeB

Ms. Denise Fort, Chair
Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission
P.O. Box 25007, D-5001
Denver, CO 80225-0007

Re: Draft Report, "WATER IN THE WEST: THE CHALLENGE FOR THE NEXT
CENTURY"

Dear Ms. Fort:

This letter provides the comments of the Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB")
to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission ("Commission") on its October 1997
"Public Review Draft" of the report, entitled "Water in the West: The Challenge for the Next
Century" ("draft report"). The CWCB is the state agency charged with the "protection and
development of the waters of the state, for the benefit of the past and future inhabitants of the
state..." Section 37-60-102, C.R.S.

We appreciate the sincere interest and hard work of all Commission members, but are
concerned by the lack of consensus and focus reflected in the draft report. After two years of fact
finding, research and deliberation it is disturbing that a several Commission members feel
compelled to criticize the Commission's main work product in an Appendix to the draft report,
while other members are contemplating preparation ofJi dissenting report. The Commission
should either limit its recommendations to those areas where true consensus is possible or
present the entire range of issues in a balanced, objective light.

The report is too long, too unfocused, filled with sweeping generalizations and factual
inaccuracies, and so critical of all aspects of western water management that we question the
value of finalizing it. The Commission's criticisms and recommendations are so wide-ranging
and poorly focused that the draft report suggests very little in terms of pragmatic solutions for the
21st Century. The draft report is overly critical of agricultural development in the west, and in
addition many of its recommendations are contrary to long established relationships and
institutions for allocating and developing western water. Unless the draft report is extensively
revised, it will be ineffective as a source of usable guidance.

Our comments echo many of the sentiments expressed to the Commission during earlier
testimony provided by several state officials. In particular we endorse the statement offered by
James Lochhead, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, at the
Commission's meeting in Denver on May 16, 1996 highlighting the need for improved state-