From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The summer convention of the Colorado Water Congress last week had a holiday feel. It wasn’t an elegant table setting, but more like dumping a 5,000-piece puzzle on the floor and telling the kids to have at it. From the first day, development of a state water plan was at the top of everyone’s to-do list.
Gov. John Hickenlooper, who ordered the plan in May, stopped by to give a pep talk on Wednesday evening. Hickenlooper acknowledged that he has put the plan on a fast track — he wants a plan in place by 2015 — but said it’s not an impossible task and encouraged water users to broaden their perspective of self-interest.
There were presentations from other Western states that have developed water plans, and most have similarities to Colorado in the need for those plans: growth, drought, climate change and conflicts over competing uses within the states. Like Colorado, they are moving away from centralized planning and seeking regional input.
WESTERN WATER PLANS
IDAHO Year: 1976, revised 2012 Why: Protection against California plans to export Snake River water in 1963. It asserts sovereignty of water over federal actions or actions by other states.
How it works: General guidance from the state that ultimately affects funding. There is a water bank that serves agriculture.
MONTANA Year: 2013 (in process) Why: Coordination of regional water development.
How it works: Basin advisory councils are attempting to sort out water needs for the next 20 years. Water rights through court adjudication are still the driver for water use within the state.
NEW MEXICO Year: 1987, revised 2003 Why: Protection against Texas water claims.
How it works: Voluntary steering committees by region, not tied to funding.
No top-down dictates from state.
OKLAHOMA Year: 1980, revised 2012 Why: Drought, in-state competition for water resources.
How it works: Emphasis is on long-term funding for infrastructure, data collection, water management and regional (by river basin) planning efforts. One big issue is groundwater depletion.
OREGON Year: 2009, completed 2012 Why: Growth, land use, climate change.
How it works: The plan seeks to balance environmental needs with human uses. It includes 13 strategy areas, including funding of projects. It relies on monitoring conditions and actions with five-year updates.
TEXAS Year: 1961, updated 2012 Why: Droughts and floods.
How it works: State planning has shifted from a topdown process to regional input from water districts, counties and any city or town with at least 500 people. A ballot issue this year, Proposition 6, would inject $2 billion into state water funding.
UTAH Year: 2001 Why: Planning for future growth.
How it works: It seeks to integrate local, regional, state and federal decisions on developing projects.
It also lists strategies for sharing water, conservation, reuse and storage.
WYOMING Year: 2007 Why: To describe competing uses, future needs.
How it works: It is a framework plan that describes how water is used in the state, based on numerous sources, including basin advisory groups. It identifies possible projects.
More Statewide Water Plan coverage here.