Laserfiche WebLink
<br />< . <br /> <br />001356 <br /> <br />Put another way. to have a "state water <br />plan" in the style of a master blueprint is <br />to imply that state government would have <br />the authority to implement the plan--to pick <br />and choose among competing uses of water and <br />projects. This is. of course, not currently <br />the case. If a water right holder has the <br />financial wherewithall to proceed, he is <br />essentially free to do so from a state <br />perspective. <br /> <br />While I believe that the notion of a 'Istate water plan" is <br /> <br />a misnomer. this is not to say that Colorado does not have <br /> <br />policies for the protection and development of its water <br /> <br />resources. Quite to the contrary. <br /> <br />The state1s overriding policy since <br />before statehood has been the prior <br />appropriation doctrine. The key feature of <br />this policy has been that decisions as to <br />the use and allocation of water are made by <br />individual appropriators. not be state <br />government. All other policies and <br />strategies of the state have been designed <br />to support the prior appropriation system. <br /> <br />To conclude. I have attempted to show that while Colorado <br /> <br />lacks a traditional water plan, it has instead evolved a system <br /> <br />of laws. policies. and programs which establish a flexible <br /> <br />ongoing process of water development and management. That <br /> <br />system has provided well for adequate water supplies wherever <br /> <br />and whenever there is sufficient need and financing. A concise <br /> <br />summary of that system is found in the attached "Primer" <br /> <br />prepared by Bill McDonald. Director of the Colorado Water <br /> <br />Conservation Board. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />gl <br /> <br />-10- <br />