Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />(i!> <br /> <br />,COJ\11vlENT ON SECOND COLORADO BASIN SWSI 1vlEETING, JAN. 13, 2U04 <br /> <br />General Comments <br /> <br />After the January 13 meeting in Glenwood Springs, I asked about 40 persons what they knew <br />about SWSI. Only 3 knew of its existence, and those 3 didn't know much about it. <br /> <br />At the second Colorado Basin meeting~ Rick Brown reminded us that although there will be an <br />attempt to address other water concerns, SWSI is a CWCB function and therefore is about water <br />development. As one of the Basin Advisors for environment, I must take exception to such a <br />myopic view. Conservation can and should be an important part of "Supply" in "Statewide Water <br />Supply Initiative." <br /> <br />Reality is that the eastern slope's demand for water can never be satisfied, even if trans-mountain <br />diversions dry up the western slope completely. Availability of water enables groYlth of <br />municipalities, and growth demands still more water. This fact ofIife should be up front in SWSI, <br />so that conservation measures can have proper emphasis. For example, Western Resource <br />Advocates calculate that in metro Denver, 54% of all water is used to keep lawns green (Grand <br />Junction Daily Sentine~ 12/01/03). If all Front-Range lawns were xeriscaped, and agricultural <br />irrigation made more efficient, these measures alone would make it likely that no more trans- <br />mountain diversions would ever be needed. If the western slope did the same, perhaps no more <br />dams would be needed. <br /> <br />That some ill-conceived Front Range residential developments are depleting their grolll1dwater <br />supplies at alanning rates is not justification for impairing western slope streams to compensate <br />for this folly. The communities must find alternatives. The State must not allow development in <br />areas that are certain to have to seek out-of-basin transfers in order to function. <br /> <br />In large measure, the economy of the western slope depends on activities associated with <br />unimpaired streams. Tourism needs healthy habitat, fish, views, and water sports such as rafting <br />and kayaking4 At some point, damage to streams and lakes cannot be mitigated. <br /> <br />Colorado's streams should be managed as follows: <br /> <br />1. Determine how much water can be removed from a stream without destroying its <br />viability as a natural stream, and do not remove more than amount. <br /> <br />2. Decide how to apportion the amount that can be removed+ <br /> <br />On page 14 of the handout "Methodologies for Estimating..~" it says that the State does not <br />concede the legality of certain mitigation measures. I presume this refers to bypass flows. In view <br />of several Circuit Courts of Appeals decisions, perhaps it's time for the State to accept reality on <br />this issue. I applaud SWSI for its intent to take reality into account in the planning process+ <br /> <br />-1- <br />