# AW Action Alert! Last Chance To Comment On The Colorado Water Plan!



## soggy_tortillas (Jul 22, 2014)

Thanks for all the work you guys do to keep our rivers flowing!


----------



## Melrose (Nov 2, 2005)

Email sent...thanks AW


----------



## LongmontRafter (Jun 12, 2008)

*link not working?*

I've tried both Chrome and Explorer and can't view the sample letter...Other than being too lazy to write my own letter, what am I doing wrong here?


----------



## soggy_tortillas (Jul 22, 2014)

My email got kicked back to me.


----------



## basinrafter (May 12, 2009)

LongmontRafter said:


> I've tried both Chrome and Explorer and can't view the sample letter...Other than being too lazy to write my own letter, what am I doing wrong here?


I've tried both those as well and am getting nowhere. Perhaps it's just us?


----------



## soggy_tortillas (Jul 22, 2014)

Firefox pulled it up for me no problem. But I'm not sure the email is correct. Anyone else get an error message?


----------



## yesimapirate (Oct 18, 2010)

No luck on getting the draft to open via Chrome, Firefox, or IE. Soggy, you willing to post the draft here since you got it to work?


----------



## soggy_tortillas (Jul 22, 2014)

Here's the letter:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on our 2nd draft of the Colorado Water Plan. 

I am encouraged that the Plan recognizes many of the values that I hope we preserve for all Coloradans:
- A productive economy that supports vibrant and sustainable cities, viable and productive agriculture, and a robust skiing, recreation, and tourism industry;
- Efficient and effective water infrastructure; and
- A healthy environment that includes healthy watershed, river, streams, and wildlife.

As we grow, how we grow is extremely important. Every basin talks about storage and I hope that state endorsement for every future water project is not automatic. The Colorado Water Plan needs common-sense criteria for future water projects and water management so that we grow smart. 

Recreational water needs are currently overlooked and under-evaluated in the Plan. I ask that the State show leadership in assigning Roundtables a specific set of metrics for development, and that the state partner with stakeholders like American Whitewater to assess demands for recreation - both in defining flows that support recreational opportunities, and in developing a quantitative baseline for assessing the impact or enhancement to recreation from any future project. Currently, only the Yampa and Colorado river basins are pursuing appropriate metrics (boatable days). Until each Basin, and the State develop a common set of metrics for evaluating recreational values, and apply these metrics consistently to local stream, basin, and trans-basin planning, the Colorado Water Plan will not reach its full potential.

River based recreation, including fishing, boating, and the enjoyment of healthy riparian areas for hiking, picnicking and camping, is a core part of this economy – all which the draft Colorado Water Plan recognizes. However, the Plan does not address the economic impact of river-based recreation to the State economy, and I encourage the CWCB to honor the recreational value of water by studying and reporting economic impact data by Sector, including Recreation. 

While many of the States programs help meet recreational water demands, and protect them in priority, I would ask the Colorado Water Conservation Board to support legislation to allow a Recreational In-Channel Diversion right to protect boating flows for a segment of river using a stream gauge, rather than a control structure as currently required under state law. This simple change would more easily align RICD rights with other water demands, like Endangered Species recovery programs and In-Stream Flows, and help eliminate some of the environmental concerns with building concrete structures in our rivers.

Whether any reach of stream in Colorado has any recreational needs or protections (ex. ISF or RICDs), the public’s legal rights to recreate on those streams in not fully recognized by state law. The Colorado Water Plan and the Governor’s Executive Order offer a great opportunity to clarify the public's rights to recreate on our streams and rivers, and to align the activities of CWCB with those of Colorado State Parks, Department of Outdoor Recreation Industry, and local tourism offices to protect both sufficient flows and provide safe access to high-value recreational streams. 

Lastly, as our population grows, please increase funding and scope for water stewardship education. Much of the public is not aware of the magnitude of our water challenges. As a paddler, I have a direct and intimate connection with water, and I would like to change the culture and our relationship with water through comprehensive education and experience. Our often overworked rivers support so much, and yet provide priceless opportunities for self-improvement, personal challenge, and quiet contemplation. Every Coloradan must understand the value of water, not just the cost. 

Thank you for your efforts in creating our Colorado Water Plan and for the opportunity to comment in this collaborative process. 


And the email it was sent to, please let me know if your works. Mine was sent back to me as undeliverable. [email protected]


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

soggy_tortillas said:


> My email got kicked back to me.


Email worked fine for me, got a response right away:

Thank you for your email and input regarding Colorado's Water Plan. 

At each CWCB Board meeting since September, 2013 there has been a public input agenda item regarding Colorado's Water Plan. All of the comments received by email to [email protected] have been included in the Board packets for review during these agenda items. Depending on the date of submission, your input will be reviewed at the next scheduled CWCB Board meeting. 

While not every individual receives a direct email reply regarding their input, a CWCB staff response and/or recommendation regarding all input received is included in a summary spreadsheet within the related Board packet and also available for review online at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cowaterplan/record-input-received-date. 

Please email [email protected] if you have any questions regarding input submitted.


----------



## soggy_tortillas (Jul 22, 2014)

Interesting... I deleted the "lorado" from "Colorado" and the email went through. So I guess if the first one doesn't work try [email protected]
Thanks Freakus!


----------



## basinrafter (May 12, 2009)

Thanks Soggy Tortillas!


----------



## yesimapirate (Oct 18, 2010)

Sent. Confirmation received. Chilaquiles, thanks for the draft.


----------



## AW-Evan (May 27, 2014)

Thanks everyone for sending comments and working through this to get it done! Apparently there is a problem with the CWP server. Their other email address is: [email protected] 

Please re-send to this address if you have not already and you should receive a confirmation email. Frustrating, but if everyone can help spread the word and use the email above our voices will still be heard! 

Thanks,
ES


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

done!
Thanks for the reminder.
SarahD


----------



## LongmontRafter (Jun 12, 2008)

Thanks for posting that Soggy-T!

email sent...


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

The plan barely mentions using groundwater which kind of overlooks a big part of the State's water supply.


----------



## AW-Evan (May 27, 2014)

Last day to get your comments in!


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

Article in the post this morning suggests there will be changes made to the Water Plan because of Front Range concerns, including ensuring new storage space to hold 130 billion gallons would address.

Sounds like new reservoirs to me:


Front Range cities make last-minute objections to Colorado water plan - The Denver Post


----------



## soggy_tortillas (Jul 22, 2014)

Pardon my French here, but fuch those Front Rangers and their excessive water needs. Maybe the Front Range should go the way of the dry states in the west and offer incentives for replacing turf grass with xeric plants or a waterless landscape. Kinda feeling this way about Steamboat at the moment too; not sure how many golf courses we really need, especially the new one that was just approved for the cluster of 6 private homes. 
I don't think the solution to our water gap lies in more storage; I think it lies in better, wiser practices, uses and ultimately less consumption. 
I almost feel like this could be somewhat compared to the dust bowl. Farmers weren't using sustainable practices and everyone suffered through the drought. The government came in and offered relief in the form of incentive programs for better practices. They educated farmers on soil conservation and anti-erosion, and paid the farmers $1 per acre to use the new methods. This was in the 30s. We’ve come a long way since then, but it seems in some areas we’ve taken a few steps back. 

People should be plant native, xeric plants and practice sustainable gardening, watering when needed/dry rather than every fucking day. It frustrates me to no end to see people watering their Kentucky Bluegrass lawns in the middle of the day, and/or every day, and/or in the wind. People just need a little bit of education and maybe an incentive to put the knowledge to use. If planted and watered properly, a garden will use less water than the same size plot of grass, and it will yield food, rather than just something that's generic and pretty to look at.
*I noticed that Denver Water enforces “mandatory” watering restrictions, and that “repeat offenders may be fined.” I say, fine the offenders and use the money to offer incentives to others that are willing to remodel their landscape to something that’s more water wise. Results both ways: the people that are fined hopefully won’t violate the water restrictions, and the people that convert to water wise landscapes save water. WIN, WIN!!!!!*


----------



## yesimapirate (Oct 18, 2010)

It's not just watering lawns to keep in mind.

I live in the front range. And for that reason you're welcome to scowl at me, flip me off, look down at me, etc etc. Know that I try to think bigger than just eastern slope vs western slope of one state. Water is much bigger than that. But if we're narrowing the topic to just CO, think about the amount of population growth the entire state is having. Drive west on 70 and you see growth in every little town. Drive 25 from the Springs to Cheyenne, and there's almost no division of areas anymore(just one big metropolis). There were other threads on here about how hard finding housing in the Ark Valley has been because it's so full. In every direction of CO, houses, shopping centers, breweries, distilleries, and even medical centers are growing like weeds.

All those folks(native or not) need water to live. Does everyone do it wisely? Doubtful. Can the masses be educated? Perhaps, slowly. Should we hike the fines for those that can't follow the rules? Maybe. Can we close the gate on new arrivals to CO? I don't know that preventing the growth is the answer either, but I feel you gotta keep our state's population increases in the conversation.

Hmmm, weed. There's something else that you have to consider when talking about water consumption. We have a new cash crop in our state. Those plants need water. The visitors coming in droves to consume the green stuff are also consuming additional water. Earmark some of those new millions in tax dollars to do something water related. Maybe help those incentive programs Soggy's talking about.


----------



## yesimapirate (Oct 18, 2010)

I would also like to note that I have a green lawn. It's watered once a week at 2am with 6 minutes per zone in the areas that I cannot reach with my swamp cooler's drainage hose. Is that minimal enough? Perhaps not in some people's eyes, but it's what I feel is right in order keep the value of my house. And it's keeps the wife happy.


----------



## soggy_tortillas (Jul 22, 2014)

yesimapirate said:


> I would also like to note that I have a green lawn. It's watered once a week at 2am with 6 minutes per zone in the areas that I cannot reach with my swamp cooler's drainage hose. Is that minimal enough? Perhaps not in some people's eyes, but it's what I feel is right in order keep the value of my house. And it's keeps the wife happy.


That is a great way to water your lawn. Most people way over water, and then the grass turns brown and they think they need to water more because, well, the grass is brown. The truth is that your grass will be healthier if you wait to water until it's completely dry- makes the roots dig deeper. When you water too much your roots won't go deep, they'll only access the water that's easy for them to get to. This actually applies to most plants.
Your pot point is good too... but I do wonder...
I might use one gallon of water between three mature plants every two or three days. Some people might water theirs more, but I find that's all mine need.
I like the idea of applying some of the pot taxes to water issues. 
Sorry for my shitty Front Range comments. In my defense, I didn't really single you guys out, I also criticize my own town and its excessive golf courses... we have like 6... Fuckin golfers.


----------

