The Interbasin Compact Commission (IBCC) of Colorado has made some significant strides related to creating a dialogue and planning for the State's water future. This is of course no small task given the State's history of parochial water development and east slope/west slope animosity. There are dozens of examples of cooperative water projects, but there are numerous other examples of unjust water grabs and unintended consequences related to dam and diversion construction detrimentally impacting environmental settings and local economies to give forward thinking people pause. To this point, the IBCC has taken on, as at least one of its goals, to open the water dialogue to broader interests and more inclusive water uses. Bravo.
Unfortunately, water conservation has taken a back seat in this effort. This is not to say that many water providers and water users in the State do not take water conservation seriously,... many do. But surprisingly, a vast number of the State's water providers - municipalities and special districts - do not appear to take water conservation seriously evidenced by the lack of these entities developing meaningful water conservation plans using the guidelines and requirements set forth in Colorado Statute. Meaningful water conservation plans allow for the setting of water conservation goals and the tracking of successful water savings in a manner that is clearly needed for Colorado to best manage its current and future allocations of water resources in the best and most earnest manner. Without meaningful water conservation plans and the water savings that occur as a result of careful and thoughtful planning, it is difficult for the State to represent its actions in a consistent and consciencious manner to our citizens and to those states that we share in the use of the water transported by our rivers and streams.
Should the State develop more stringent standards and requirements for local water conservation planning and implementation? That is a tricky question, since it is clearly undesirable to create statute that requires local utilities and special districts to commit resources to water conservation that they lack. Due to the TABOR amendments, some utilites and special districts are hard pressed to find general fund monies that could be used for such activities. Although the State has created a nearly $3 million grant program to support local water conservation planning and implementation, pursuing and implementing planning still requires local resources. On the other hand, programs that are based on State regulatory requirements cannot be dismissed by City Councils and Special District Boards as being voluntary and/or unnecessary. Having State requirements can therefore take away the guess work that staff can face at a local level when approaching appointed and/or elected officials.
There is no easy answer. However, it would appear that the IBCC needs to take a more explicit stance reqarding the value and importance of water conservation planning when looking at water development projects that have regional and/or statewide signficance. For example, the Northern Integrated Supply Plan (NISP) has run into opposition due to the potential impact on the Cache la Poudre, and the perception that local municipalities are not planning for and implementing aggressive enough water conservation programs. Interesting that most of the municipalities that would benefit from NISP have yet to complete their water conservation plans. This is not a good thing.
Similarly, the reallocation of Chatfield Reservoir storage from flood pool to water supply storage requires federal permitting and approval. Numerous front range communities stand to gain important storage from this project within an existing storage facility, yet many of the project stakeholders and benefactors have not completed water conservation plans consistent with the State statutes. Given that the Chatfield project has been on the books for over 15 years, and that substantial work has been conducted on the EIS since 2004, it is difficult to understand the mindset of those water providers that have not developed water conservation plans in advance of the EIS preparation and approval process. Some have, but not all.
Isn't getting the entire team to work together in a consistent and beneficial manner one of the goals of the IBCC? It seems like a natural fit. However it has been an unpopular role given that it would require all water users to work as a team and truly share resources, and at times commit resources to the benefit of the larger outcome, not just the needs of the few. It remains to be seen how the overall water needs of the Front Range will be served through the IBCC process. From this writer's perspective, the IBCC is a great idea that will continue to ferment and solidify into the future. However, it may be that unless the IBCC develops strong, and at times unpopular, stands regarding some of the thornier water issues, such as the need for widespread, meaningful (and therefore measurable) water conservation, the overall process will fail. A house divided against itself cannot stand,... and a group of water providers operating in manners inconsistent with the needs of the larger community will similarly fail.
Unfortunately, water conservation has taken a back seat in this effort. This is not to say that many water providers and water users in the State do not take water conservation seriously,... many do. But surprisingly, a vast number of the State's water providers - municipalities and special districts - do not appear to take water conservation seriously evidenced by the lack of these entities developing meaningful water conservation plans using the guidelines and requirements set forth in Colorado Statute. Meaningful water conservation plans allow for the setting of water conservation goals and the tracking of successful water savings in a manner that is clearly needed for Colorado to best manage its current and future allocations of water resources in the best and most earnest manner. Without meaningful water conservation plans and the water savings that occur as a result of careful and thoughtful planning, it is difficult for the State to represent its actions in a consistent and consciencious manner to our citizens and to those states that we share in the use of the water transported by our rivers and streams.
Should the State develop more stringent standards and requirements for local water conservation planning and implementation? That is a tricky question, since it is clearly undesirable to create statute that requires local utilities and special districts to commit resources to water conservation that they lack. Due to the TABOR amendments, some utilites and special districts are hard pressed to find general fund monies that could be used for such activities. Although the State has created a nearly $3 million grant program to support local water conservation planning and implementation, pursuing and implementing planning still requires local resources. On the other hand, programs that are based on State regulatory requirements cannot be dismissed by City Councils and Special District Boards as being voluntary and/or unnecessary. Having State requirements can therefore take away the guess work that staff can face at a local level when approaching appointed and/or elected officials.
There is no easy answer. However, it would appear that the IBCC needs to take a more explicit stance reqarding the value and importance of water conservation planning when looking at water development projects that have regional and/or statewide signficance. For example, the Northern Integrated Supply Plan (NISP) has run into opposition due to the potential impact on the Cache la Poudre, and the perception that local municipalities are not planning for and implementing aggressive enough water conservation programs. Interesting that most of the municipalities that would benefit from NISP have yet to complete their water conservation plans. This is not a good thing.
Similarly, the reallocation of Chatfield Reservoir storage from flood pool to water supply storage requires federal permitting and approval. Numerous front range communities stand to gain important storage from this project within an existing storage facility, yet many of the project stakeholders and benefactors have not completed water conservation plans consistent with the State statutes. Given that the Chatfield project has been on the books for over 15 years, and that substantial work has been conducted on the EIS since 2004, it is difficult to understand the mindset of those water providers that have not developed water conservation plans in advance of the EIS preparation and approval process. Some have, but not all.
Isn't getting the entire team to work together in a consistent and beneficial manner one of the goals of the IBCC? It seems like a natural fit. However it has been an unpopular role given that it would require all water users to work as a team and truly share resources, and at times commit resources to the benefit of the larger outcome, not just the needs of the few. It remains to be seen how the overall water needs of the Front Range will be served through the IBCC process. From this writer's perspective, the IBCC is a great idea that will continue to ferment and solidify into the future. However, it may be that unless the IBCC develops strong, and at times unpopular, stands regarding some of the thornier water issues, such as the need for widespread, meaningful (and therefore measurable) water conservation, the overall process will fail. A house divided against itself cannot stand,... and a group of water providers operating in manners inconsistent with the needs of the larger community will similarly fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment