Potential Water Conflicts

Because the Critical Water Planning Area has limited water supplies under certain conditions and competing water uses, by definition there are likely water conflicts in the watersheds.  One component of the Critical Area Resource Plan will be an identification of the potential water conflicts. 

A list of potential conflicts that have been discussed at previous Critical Area Advisory Committee meetings is provided below.  Feedback (including suggestions for modifications, additions, and removals) is most welcome!

• Increasing water availability for current and future water needs vs Increasing water availability drives population growth;
• Water availability for human use vs Water availability for ecosystem use;
• Managing by jurisdiction vs Collaborative management of water across jurisdictions;
• Stormwater as a nuisance vs Stormwater as a resource;
• Registration of water withdrawals helps manage water resources to ensure long-term availability vs Registration of water withdrawals is a way to try to regulate individual water uses;
• Regulations at local and state level vs Management necessary at the watershed level;
• Limited water availability during summer when uses are greatest vs Increased water availability in winter during lowest usage; and
• Wastewater effluent as a flow stabilizer/enhancer vs A source of nutrients and other pollutants.

February Workshop Follow-Up

Thanks to all who attended the workshop on February 15th to evaluate and prioritize management alternatives under consideration for the Marsh/Rock CARP!  The draft meeting minutes are now available for download. 

The workshop included two major sections.  In the morning, an initial screening process was conducted.  This process labeled each management alternative as either a Yes, No, or Maybe.  Yes indicated that a management alternative is feasible and/or implementation of the practice is already underway.  No indicated that the practice is not feasible and additional discussion is not necessary.  Alternatives not considered Yes or No were designated as Maybe.  The remainder of the workshop focused on scoring the Maybes in terms of feasibility using 6 pillars; namely, information, funding, policies, institutions, stakeholders, and timeframe. 

For each Maybe management alternative, the score by pillar and notes on each pillar is presented here.  Definitions for the numeric score criteria are available here.  A revised management alternatives spreadsheet is also available.  It contains a description of each management alternative, the total feasibility score, and discussion notes.

The next Critical Area Advisory Committee meeting will be held on April 11th from 1-3pm at the Ag Center.  This meeting will include a discussion of the workshop results.  Your feedback is encouraged.