There are a vast number of water cycle videos out there,.. some by NASA,.. some by professional groups. This is one of the best. Hope that you enjoy.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Interbasin Basin Compact Commission and Water Conservation
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.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Brighton Water Conservation Plan Receives State Approval
The City of Brighton received written approval from the Colorado Water Conservation Board's (CWCB) Office of Water Conservation and Drought Planning for its Water Conservation Plan. The Plan, which was prepared by Great Western Institute, received high marks from the CWCB and its reviewer/contractor Aqua Craft. Specifically, CWCB indicated that, "The City of Brighton Water Conservation Plan prepared by Great Western Institute is an excellent example of what a conservation plan should be."
The Plan was prepared over about a 6 month period led by City of Brighton Public Works Department staffer, Dawn Hessheimer, who manages multiple water resources projects for the City including augmentation and substitute water supply plans and water conservation. City Planning, Parks and Recreation, Finance, and Public Works Departments all had a hand in supporting Plan development and completion.
CWCB had particular praise for the cost/benefit analyses, and related water savings analyses included in Brighton's Plan. The CWCB has embarked on developing an "Identified Projects and Processes (IPP)" database to track water needs and development into the future, including those related to water conservation. CWCB indicated that the format that Great Western Institute utilized for the City of Brighton, including detailed cost/benefit analyses and assumptions for each selected water conservation measure and program is going to help facilitate the development of the IPP database. Although CWCB will not develop guidelines that are so specific as to require this cost/benefit format, CWCB will promote the use of similar content and information in future Water Conservation Plans since it allows for easy input into the IPP database. This is just the kind of water conservation planning metric that will help the state to quantify "more meaningful water conservation".
The Plan was prepared over about a 6 month period led by City of Brighton Public Works Department staffer, Dawn Hessheimer, who manages multiple water resources projects for the City including augmentation and substitute water supply plans and water conservation. City Planning, Parks and Recreation, Finance, and Public Works Departments all had a hand in supporting Plan development and completion.
CWCB had particular praise for the cost/benefit analyses, and related water savings analyses included in Brighton's Plan. The CWCB has embarked on developing an "Identified Projects and Processes (IPP)" database to track water needs and development into the future, including those related to water conservation. CWCB indicated that the format that Great Western Institute utilized for the City of Brighton, including detailed cost/benefit analyses and assumptions for each selected water conservation measure and program is going to help facilitate the development of the IPP database. Although CWCB will not develop guidelines that are so specific as to require this cost/benefit format, CWCB will promote the use of similar content and information in future Water Conservation Plans since it allows for easy input into the IPP database. This is just the kind of water conservation planning metric that will help the state to quantify "more meaningful water conservation".
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Great Western Institute's Contribution to Local Conservation Education
Coyote Gulch reported about Castle Pines North Metro District's water conservation education efforts by repeating a story from YourHub.com. YourHub wrote:
"In a bold move the Castle Pines North Metro District (CPNMD) has challenged each of their 3500 customers and 30 HOAs to "Get WARPed." WARP stands for the Water Awareness and Responsibility Program, a public education program designed to increase water conservation awareness. According to CPNMD district manager, Jim McGrady, "By getting WARPed, the citizens of Castle Pines North (CPN) can help achieve a more secure future for the community."
"CPN is one of many Douglas County communities whose water is derived solely from non-renewable wells which experts predict by 2022 will no longer meet demand. Through water conservation and conscientious use of current supplies, the citizens of CPN can help keep water costs to a minimum and assure an adequate water supply for the future. While the CPNMD works to identify alternative sources of water, the citizens of the community can to do their part to conserve the resources we already have. As CPN resident April Parcells put it, "Conservation is our cheapest source of new water." Since the initial WARP rollout in April, the WARP team has shared water conservation messages with over 3,000 children in the CPN area through school assemblies, classroom presentations, email blasts, and school web sites. Students completed hundreds of conservation activity sheets, coloring contest entries, and tested their toilets for leaks with kits provided by the CPNMD."
What was not included in the story was that Great Western Institute's Executive Director, Tracy Bouvette, provided educational resources and class time in support of CPN's efforts. Since promoting water resources conservation is integral to the mission of his organization, the support was given to CPN free of charge. Over the course of two days in April, Mr. Bouvette appeared in front of over 400 school aged children, teaching a hands-on understanding of where our water comes from, how much water each of us use, and how we can effectively conserve. In addition, Mr. Bouvette provided CPN with trivia questions for their middle and high school student competitions.
Mr. Bouvette also appeared at the Water Festival held by Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster in May. Once again, he provided engaging hands-on educational exchanges with over 200 5th grade students, discussing everything from the source of our water, to what happens after we flush our toilets, to the benefits of knowing how to turn off our sprinkler controlers.
Great Western Institute applauds the efforts of CPN, Northglenn, Thornton and Westminster, and hopes to help support other local and regional K-12 educational efforts in the future. These are just the types of activities that informed citizens need to have available to them, such that future sustainable communities can be formed and maintained.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Metro Round Table Grant to SMWSA
It is interesting that the Metro Round Table saw fit to provide the South Metro Water Supply Authority $100,500 through the Water Supply Reserve Account (one of the grant programs administered through the Colorado Water Conservation Board), even though the Authority's membership does not comply with the requirements set forth in Colorado statute regarding water conservation planning, and that the State is supposed to consider such compliance when awarding grants. In a State where the Governor has publicly stated that water conservation is his number one priority regarding the creation of future sustainable water supplies, it is alarming that the Authority would be granted funding until such time as its membership met with the basic state requirements.
It can be considered an oversight, if the Authority's membership was small and lacked resources,.. or if the member organizations were in the process of developing meaningful water conservation plans. But, unfortunately this does not appear to be the case. For example, Centennial Water & Sanitation District, which supplies water to nearly 100,000 people in the South Metro area, has developed a draft water conservation plan that was open for public comment early this year. The draft plan that Centennial developed did not meet with the basic requirements of the state statutes, and met with some fairly harsh publicly documented criticism. It is unclear what the status of this draft plan is, but based on this reviewer's read of the draft document, it is not something that Centennial or its customers should be proud of since it does not allow for meaningful water conservation to occur based on the state's definitions.
Meaningful water conservation is obtained through measurable and verifiable reductions in water demand. Centennial claims to have reduced water demand by increasing water rates and implementing a water budget. Although these are good water conservation programs, most of Centennial's reduced water demand occurred prior to its implementation of these two programs,.. and since they implemented increased water rates and the water budget, average per capita water use has increased. Perhaps Centennial Water & Sanitation District, which is led by a Board of Directors that does not represent the customer base that it serves, but is rather staffed entirely by home builders, needs to take a long hard look at its policies and act in a manner that is more in keeping with the needs of the community and the state of water resources management in Douglas County and the Front Range (as evidenced by the handful of communities that do have strong water conservation plans such as Denver Water, Castle Rock, and Colorado Springs).
Given Centennial's actions, and lack of meaningful water conservation, it is surprising and disappointing that the Metro Round Table saw fit to provide funding to SMWSA. If the Authority really wants to be taken seriously, it would seem that it needs to pull together its membership and lead the way with meaningful water conservation. Until such time as this occurs, it would appear that the Authority is going down a path that is not sustainable and will not ultimately provide renewable water supplies to the South Metro area,.. and the State is happy to help them achieve this inauspicious goal.
It can be considered an oversight, if the Authority's membership was small and lacked resources,.. or if the member organizations were in the process of developing meaningful water conservation plans. But, unfortunately this does not appear to be the case. For example, Centennial Water & Sanitation District, which supplies water to nearly 100,000 people in the South Metro area, has developed a draft water conservation plan that was open for public comment early this year. The draft plan that Centennial developed did not meet with the basic requirements of the state statutes, and met with some fairly harsh publicly documented criticism. It is unclear what the status of this draft plan is, but based on this reviewer's read of the draft document, it is not something that Centennial or its customers should be proud of since it does not allow for meaningful water conservation to occur based on the state's definitions.
Meaningful water conservation is obtained through measurable and verifiable reductions in water demand. Centennial claims to have reduced water demand by increasing water rates and implementing a water budget. Although these are good water conservation programs, most of Centennial's reduced water demand occurred prior to its implementation of these two programs,.. and since they implemented increased water rates and the water budget, average per capita water use has increased. Perhaps Centennial Water & Sanitation District, which is led by a Board of Directors that does not represent the customer base that it serves, but is rather staffed entirely by home builders, needs to take a long hard look at its policies and act in a manner that is more in keeping with the needs of the community and the state of water resources management in Douglas County and the Front Range (as evidenced by the handful of communities that do have strong water conservation plans such as Denver Water, Castle Rock, and Colorado Springs).
Given Centennial's actions, and lack of meaningful water conservation, it is surprising and disappointing that the Metro Round Table saw fit to provide funding to SMWSA. If the Authority really wants to be taken seriously, it would seem that it needs to pull together its membership and lead the way with meaningful water conservation. Until such time as this occurs, it would appear that the Authority is going down a path that is not sustainable and will not ultimately provide renewable water supplies to the South Metro area,.. and the State is happy to help them achieve this inauspicious goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
