Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Allocated $4,000 to Colorado State University for a remote sensing <br />project designed to test the use of satellite technology in <br />assessing drought impact on Colorado rangeland, cropland, and other <br />vegetation. <br /> <br />. Allocated $30,000 to the University of Colorado for an economic and <br />social modeling project which would provide a framework useful in <br />short and long term decision-making concerning projected drought- <br />related needs of Colorado communities. <br /> <br />. Allocated $25,000 to Colorado Water Congress for the implementation <br />of a water conservation awareness program for school-age children, <br />kindergarten through 12th grade. <br /> <br />. Allocated $40,000 to the State Engineer for the performance of a <br />groundwater study in the heavily drought-impacted region of <br />southwest Colorado. <br /> <br />. Sent resolution to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation <br />encouraging support for a change to the Reclamation Act of 1902; <br />received an affirmative response. <br /> <br />. Sent resolution to members of Colorado Congressional Delegation <br />encouraging the cons i derat ion of ass i stance to stockmen for buy- <br />back of livestock necessary to rebuild foundation herds; received <br />supportive responses. <br /> <br />. Encouraged a Statewide domestic water policy urging the adoption of <br />water conservation practices by water utilities, e.g., the <br />installation of water meters with all new taps. <br /> <br />. Caused ASCS to take a broader view of eligibility for livestock feed <br />assistance. <br /> <br />Where the first Drought Council served a predominately "think tank" <br />advisory role, the second Drought Council took on a more formal, active role in <br />goal-setting, planning, and policy guidance and implementation. Where the first <br />Drought Council held no particular power over policy decisions beyond the power <br />of its expertise, the second Drought Council membership actually formulated and <br />implemented policy decisions, often by way of a formal vote. A significant <br />difference between the two Drought Counci 1 s was the compos it ion of thei r <br />membership. The first Drought Council consisted of scientists and <br />administrators highly qual ified to advise the Governor on drought situation <br />response. Since the first Drought Council was completely hand-picked by the <br />Governor, and cognizant from the outset of its strictly advisory capacity, it is <br />safe to say that the Governor reserved ultimate authority over all pol icy <br />decisions. On the other hand, the in setting up the second Drought Council the <br />Leg!slature took some of the power of appointment, and thus the power of <br />u1tlmate authority, out of the Governor's hands, while leaving all the <br />responsibility for policy decisions in the Governor's hands. It was still the <br /> <br />30 <br />