“Be quick.”

We heard this more than once from business contacts we met in China. Our objective – to connect U.S. technology and firms with money and partners in China – met with very positive reviews. But change is the rule in China today, and the advice to move fast reflects a sense of urgency that all businesses seem to operate with there.

For China business, now’s the time. If you’re not moving fast, you’re being left behind. And it shows — everywhere. Fifty years of economic growth have seemingly been compressed into 10.

This frantic pace has created environmental challenges as you’ve heard. Forecasts of China’s ecological collapse are perhaps overstated, but not by much. As I’ve written, renewable energy development and cleantech are supported there by necessity.

Not so in the U.S. The commitment here lacks by comparison. Investors are hesitant as a result. (Read Michele Chandler’s Planet-Profit Report story.) The implications are debatable, of course, but for U.S. firms looking for money and markets, opportunity may be elsewhere. U.S. companies with good technology and patience to form solid partnerships can prosper in China.

Patience – and good connections. If you’re interested, we can help.

Final thoughts:

For a news and information junkie like me, China’s tight grip on media was annoying, if not a big issue. My favorite online resources were always a click away. You’d be out of luck though if Facebook and YouTube are your go-to sites. And Google access is spotty, the result I guessed of an acrimonious relationship with Chinese authorities.

In today’s China, it’s hard to see how a more open media environment poses the same existential threat today as its leaders once thought. China’s young, urbane, educated population is on a mission – one that has little or nothing to do with ideology. They’ve tasted the fruits of a market economy (yes, a socialist-market-economy), have a firm grip on the modern world, and it’s inconceivable to me they’ll let it go.

We met two young journalists working for media owned and operated by the government. They were knowledgeable, sharp and dealing with the same issues U.S. journalists are in finding a foothold in a changing media world. We were in the offices of state-owned China Daily when news of Kim Jong Il’s death came across the wire. End of meeting. As in any newsroom, a flurry of activity ensued.

The one major difference? China Daily’s morning-after headline: “A Friend’s Departure.”

For me China was also a land of contradictions, considering where it’s been and how fast it’s going in the opposite direction.

We’re taught here that Mao is a revered figure in China, but my observation was that he’s a serious afterthought in Beijing and certainly in Shanghai – ignored, really – by those who blame him for holding back China from its rightful place on the world stage or those who simply find him to be irrelevant.

Deng Xiaoping is a more complex historical figure here, but in my conversations seemed to evoke similar ambivalence – he the man who set China on a path to economic reform. But to some, his legacy is tainted by Tiananmen Square in 1989, though even today his role in ordering the Army into Beijing is unclear.

China: thousands of years old, the leading world-power on several occasions throughout history, now with a young population with very little collective interest, seemingly, in the past.

Hopefully we’ll be back this spring – to continue to build bridges between the two most influential nations on the world stage.

Of the myriad ways to measure anxiety in the West over water, add legislative activity in a drought year. The raft of water-related bills coursing through the Colorado legislature this session prompted one lawmaker, Randy Fischer, (D-Fort Collins), to wryly note in his hometown newspaper, “The number of water-related bills tends to be inversely proportional to the amount of snowpack we have.” The Coloradoan is tracking more than a dozen bills on the subject.

As commendable as it is for the state’s elected officials to rally around the issue, the year-to-year, ad-hoc policy advocacy also speaks to the shortcomings of Colorado’s water-planning methodology, particularly the lack of a strategic water plan. Instead, state planners here participate in a process, where water entities and jurisdictions across the state engage in an ongoing discussion about stewardship of the state’s water resources. Historically, it has served the state well, and as I’ve said before, the professionals who administer Colorado’s complex water law are top-notch.

In recent years, however, the process has left much to be desired, as water interests vie for legislative influence or oppose what they believe to be unreasonable incursions. The slurry of bills speaks for itself.

Moreover, Colorado’s most pressing strategic water issue – the disposition of its remaining Colorado River allocation – is missing from the legislative docket. Although demand now exceeds supply, the prospect of developing several hundred thousand acre-feet of water the state is entitled to remains only a discussion point. Colorado remains undecided as to whether it should join its Upper Basin brethren and move decidedly to develop its entitlement.

Would a strategic plan change this outcome? It’s likely. But today, a framework that facilitates the discussion and leads it toward a well-reasoned end-point seems eons away (here’s another look at why this is the case).

Yet Colorado may have a wild card in play. There’s much speculation here about the political future of former senator and recent Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. He comes back home tested by fire, literally, seasoned to again lead and still relatively young. Will Salazar enter the dialogue and change the course of the discussion?

Well-versed in Colorado water issues before he left for Washington, his post at Interior could not have exposed him more to regional water challenges, including the plight of the Colorado River and its Basin stakeholders. His agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, just completed the seminal Colorado River Supply and Demand study. Salazar is among the nation’s foremost experts on water in the West.

Water also provides Secretary Salazar the issue he needs to engage the political sphere here in what might otherwise be an awkward reentry. Colorado’s political leadership is true-blue, with a popular governor and two popular Democratic senators who don’t appear to be going anywhere soon.

Nor do they seem particularly inclined to challenge the status quo on water. Granted, hundreds of years of water law and precedent is some stiff status quo. Yet on the issue of the state Colorado River Compact allocation, none seem inclined to act boldly with the state’s interest on the line. Would Salazar?

For starters, Secretary Salazar should acknowledge what his former department now accepts as fact: Colorado uses less Colorado River water than it is entitled to by a significant amount.

Salazar’s Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner, Michael Conner, spelled out the supply scenario in 2009, asserting that “..we have a hydrologic determination that has basically set the boundaries of what the Upper Basin states can expect under the Colorado River Compact. So it is not the 7.5 million [acre-feet] that was projected in 1922. It is somewhere closer to the 6 million acre-feet. So that’s the hydrologic determination… The states understand and are planning to that level. And we’ll be supportive of their planning efforts and their evaluations.”

Colorado is entitled to 53 percent of 6 million acre-feet, or 3.18 MAF. The Bureau’s just-released Colorado River Supply and Demand study quantifies Colorado’s current annual demand at roughly 2.1 million-acre feet – meaning the state could easily develop several hundred-thousand acre-feet of water with ample room for error.

Why isn’t Colorado “planning their efforts” and acting on its remaining allocation? Its a tall order to get consensus on any water issue, for one. There’s powerful sentiment within the community against more development regardless of the entitlement. And without a roadmap, water is plain hard.

The media, among others, seem challenged to keep up. The past week, a Denver Post opinion-page contributor wondered, “…Just what is Colorado’s remaining share from the Colorado River and its tributaries? Nobody seems to know.” In fact, the Bureau of Reclamation, the agency of record for water in the West, does know – as does its former steward.

Salazar must also grasp the incongruous plight of his native state. As the most prolific headwater state in the basin, Colorado is the remaining party to the Colorado River Compact yet to develop, or set out to develop, its full entitlement. It has watered the blossoming of the Southwest – but is last to claim its rewards.

To suggest that Colorado deserves its fair share is to state the obvious. What’s lacking may be the framework to make the argument – and a politician with the bona fides to make it.

Yesterday, the Basin Roundtable Project Exploration Committee – the Flaming Gorge task force – released the results of its year-long evaluation of a proposed 500-mile pipeline to deliver water from western Wyoming to Colorado’s Front Range. The Colorado Water Conservation Board funded the study to take a close look at Flaming Gorge, an idea that’s stuck around to confound its critics, seemingly growing more interesting to planners as time’s gone by. Colorado’s entitled to more water from Colorado River. The state needs the water. CWCB, in a controversial decision, convened a statewide panel of Basin representatives to study the idea.

Last month I speculated that the task force would render a neutral finding on the project, a result I thought would also infuriate its opponents. After a brief look, the report does both – it’s neutral, and for critics, will be maddening. Without a clear rejection of the idea, especially one with a few warts, it will be difficult for opponents to put a positive spin on the release.

There’s little question this committee would have summarily flushed Flaming Gorge if given an opportunity. Early on, the project was clumsily steered through the water community by its chief advocates, Aaron Million and Frank Jaeger, Parker’s ex-water chief. Each now “sponsor” separate proposals, although the concepts are nearly identical. The environmental community loathes the plan; it’s a “legacy” pipeline that moves huge amounts of water over long-distances. Wyoming is up in arms. In short, it has become a headache for many in the water community.

It may also be the best option for Colorado to develop its remaining Colorado River Compact allocation, fill a supply “gap” that’s materializing much faster than anticipated by state planners, take the pressure off the state’s agricultural sector, and ease the strain on the main stem of the Colorado River.

As a result, Flaming Gorge apparently lives.

Whether Colorado’s water community can agree on how to proceed is another matter. The system seems ill-equipped to deal with projects of this magnitude. There’s not really a process in place to facilitate discussions. Half (or so) of the committee seem to believe the Water Conservation Board should be involved. The other half believe a role to be outside its jurisdiction. There’s confusion as to who should be the table, and different views on whether political advocacy even matters.

There is, apparently, agreement that Colorado needs the water, that the state would benefit from better process to evaluate and commit to projects, and that Flaming Gorge should be reviewed by a second panel. But what the panel would seek to accomplish is questionable. The report hinted a second committee won’t make a recommendation either:

It is important to note that stakeholders would not be asked whether they support a Flaming Gorge project or if they think one should be built—this question would make several stakeholders uncomfortable and potentially inhibit productive discussion.

What then, would a second Flaming Gorge decide?

One measure of the high anxiety around water in the West is the hyper-interest in the Nov. 30 release of the final phase of Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River study. This phase promises to be the most interesting, approachable part of the study, focusing on a long list of proposals submitted by the public to restore the Colorado River to a healthy balance, where supply can meet growing demand.

But those looking for a silver bullet from the Bureau’s research might be disappointed. It’s a good possibility this final report won’t live up to the hype. For one, researchers have warned that policy recommendations will be avoided. The study won’t propose a plan to fix the imbalance in the river. We’re instead promised more information that will facilitate good policy-making. The question is whether the report will lead to answers to the big, intractable challenges that Western water planners face.

That said, the Bureau study has already broken new ground. It has quantified use throughout the seven-state Colorado River Basin and forecast it decades into the future, a first. Modeled against the study’s supply data, it’s how we know with certainty there’s an imbalance – that the demand for Colorado River water exceeds supply.

I’m told the final report will analyze the dozens of proposals to fix the imbalance against the study data. It’s a fascinating list of proposals ranging from suggestions to increase supply, reduce demand, modify operations and conceive of ways to govern or regulate water differently. At minimum, if the report provides meaningful feedback on the feasibility of the more promising suggestions, planners will have the makings of a new and helpful tool kit of options to consider when dealing with river issues.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the final report will help resolve huge policy issues that loom.Two issues top my list:

1. Will the Upper Basin be ‘made whole’?

In the 90-plus years the Colorado River Compact and related agreements (the ‘law of the river’) have managed its allocation, the river has tilted downstream, decidedly in favor of the Lower Basin states of Arizona, Nevada and California. For decades, the Lower Basin has used its share plus the unused portion earmarked for the Upper Basin by the Compact. But now, the Upper Basin needs the water and likely will pursue its entitlement, as every gallon of ‘surplus’ water that flows downstream equates to economic loss.
Colorado is required to protect its allocation by statute, and the study has already determined it uses less than the Compact entitles by a wide margin, as much as a million-acre feet. Will the study contemplate a future where the Upper Basin uses more water, not less? It’s a near certainty Colorado will develop its remaining allocation, much as New Mexico and Utah are. What impact will this have Basin-wide?

2. Can Basin-wide planning co-exist with prior appropriation?

Of the suggestions relating to ‘governance and implementation’ received by the Bureau, none dealt with the long-term efficacy of ‘prior appropriation’ (first in time, first in right). Western water law has developed with prior appropriation at its core, but as a 19th-century concept, some view it as barrier to effective planning.

Natural resources law specialist Michael Blumm, writing in the informative book The Public’s Water Resource by Colorado Justice Greg Hobbs, sums up a growing opinion in water circles: “The current system of water allocation (prior appropriation)suffers from poor enforcement, little citizen involvement, and virtually eschews comprehensive planning entirely.”

But a higher level of Basin-wide planning seems inevitable. If Blumm is right, prior appropriation may have to modified. That’s a tall order. Will the study offer a way forward?

Other questions may elude the study. Drought and climate change can be measured fairly easily. Can inaction by policy-makers be “modeled?” It’s difficult to see how. I’m guessing the study will take a close look at the viability of widespread desalination – an expensive and resource intensive process. Again, is their political will to follow-through, today, before a crisis unfolds?

But if the study doesn’t offer a management “silver-bullet” that some hope for, the Bureau will still have done a service. It’s already added much to the discussion. Possible short term disappointment aside.

I’ll review the results next time.