In a draft report on water conservation – now out for public comment – the Colorado Water Conservation Board has downplayed the role of conservation, even though water conservation is the cheapest, most ecologically sensible way to make our water resources go further.

Please take a moment to make your voice heard on this very important issue by telling our leaders that maximizing conservation and efficiency is the cheapest, most reliable and responsible way to ensure a balanced, sustainable water future for our families, fish and wildlife..

Moffat diversion structure dries up Jim Creek, a tributary of the Fraser River. photo © Mark Conlin

 Talking Points:

• The existing methods for providing water to Front Range residents are not sustainable,
  and the conservation strategies offered in this report are insufficient. We cannot
  continue to meet our water needs through expensive, environmentally harmful water
  projects that permanently remove water from our rivers when over 50% of Front Range
  municipal water is used to sustain thirsty outdoor landscaping and lawns. Efficiency and a greater emphasis on conservation could clearly play a much larger role in helping
  meet our future water needs than is suggested in the report. Multi-billion dollar pipeline
  projects are being evaluated in the “New Supply” update, equally aggressive water
  conservation strategies should be considered – including one where conservation can
  fully meet the gap.
  
  
• Relatedly, water conservation technology has improved significantly over the past few
  years, and this trend will continue. Why is the State projecting lower water savings in this report than in either of the previous two SWSI efforts? This is a step in the wrong
  direction; water savings forecasts should be higher now that technology has advanced.
  
  
• I am concerned the “technical group” that was charged with reviewing and editing this
  document before public comment is imbalanced and stacked with Water Providers
  who stand to benefit from lower conservation estimates. Many providers have a vested
  interest in decreasing the conservation forecasts because it could hurt their chances of building additional water development projects.
  
  
• The conservation savings estimates in this draft of the update are lower than in previous versions – specifically for the “medium” and “high” water conservation strategies. Could you provide an explanation as to why the Colorado Water Conservation Board changed these estimates? I’m concerned this may be related to the issue above.
  
  
• “Demand hardening” is often used by water providers as an excuse for not doing more
  on water conservation. This update provides an excellent description of why this excuse
  is not valid. Given that there is zero evidence suggesting that “demand hardening” actually happens, can’t this section be even stronger?
  
  
• Given the potential uncertainties in water supply availability, Colorado must start planning for more water conservation, not less.
  
  
• More generally, as citizens and Colorado’s governments continue to struggle economically, why is there not greater emphasis on conservation in this report? Over and over again, conservation is shown to be the lowest cost new water supply option. Colorado citizens and water rate payers deserve the cheapest, most ecologically friendly water supply. Water conservation efforts must be increased and this report should show how it can be done.