GRAND JUNCTION — James Eklund, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, told Club 20 in late March that the “seven points of consensus” thus far approved as a preliminary step in finalizing the Colorado Water Plan requested by Gov. John Hickenlooper represent a “new paradigm” in Front Range and Western Slope relations regarding water, but it’s really the same old paradigm: The Front Range wants and needs the Western Slope’s water.

Six of the seven points mention a “TMD,” short for transmountain water diversion.

“In putting this plan together, we’re trying to pull the state together,” Eklund said. “This is one state — our water policy needs to reflect that. The policy decisions that we live with were made by our parents and grandparents. It’s time we take off the gloves.”

Even though a panel of 300 delegates from the state’s nine water basin roundtables almost unanimously approved the “seven points of light,” as Eklund likes to call them, the three representatives of Western Slope water roundtables who accompanied Eklund to Club 20 were not in full agreement with them.

“Our core belief is that a transmountain water diversion is not in the best interests of western Colorado,” said Jim Pokrandt of Glenwood Springs, chairman of the Colorado Basin Roundtable. “But we can’t say not one more drop. The Colorado Constitution says you can’t say that.”

“We’re going to keep the discussion alive,” said Mike Preston of Cortez, chairman of the Southwest Basin Roundtable. “We’re concerned about the environment — the best feature of western Colorado.”

There are concessions to western Colorado needs within the seven points.

“Future West Slope needs should be accommodated as part of a new TMD project,” states the fifth point.

“It’s actually very didactic — western Colorado has gained some influence,” Preston said.

The final point states that, “Environmental resiliency and recreational needs must be addressed both before and conjunctively with a new TMD.”

Point number two is a Front Range promise to try to find water sources other than Western Slope rivers and reservoirs.

“A new TMD project would be used conjunctively with East Slope interruptible supply agreements, Denver Basin Aquifer resources, carry-over storage, terminal storage, drought restriction savings, and other non-West Slope water sources.”

Mary Taylor Brown of Steamboat Springs, chairwoman of the Yampa-White-Green Basin Roundtable, perceived the seven points “as a threat to dry some agriculture. All of us are concerned about how this plan would come together.”

“The state needs that conversation,” Eklund said, adopting a conciliatory tone. “We cannot force parties to do this, that or the other thing. The tradition says water in Colorado is too big a problem to solve. Colorado water is too big to fail.”

Statewide, Colorado is suffering a 15-year period of low snowpack whereas downstream states that expect water from Colorado, such as California, are enduring a drought unlike any seen in 500 years, Eklund said.

Without specifying what they are, one of the seven points says “triggers are needed” to manage and indicate when a transmountain water diversion actually diverts water.

“We like our chances more with a strategy,” Eklund said, acknowledging that “food security” in the state requires western Colorado to retain its agricultural water.

“We got blessed with a lot of storage” in western Colorado, Preston said.

Although one of the seven points promises “Colorado will continue its commitment to improve conservation and reuse,” they are unclear as to whether the Front Range will build any new water storage.

The seven points of consensus are not yet a part of the Colorado Water Plan because the negotiations are ongoing through multiple stages.

The CWCB’s 27-member Interbasin Compact Committee, including representatives from each of the roundtables as well as members appointed by the governor and legislative representatives, unanimously endorsed the conceptual seven points in July 2014.

Ron Bain is The Colorado Statesman’s Western Slope correspondent