Laserfiche WebLink
Mapping the Colorado Basin Rou ndtable’s Water Policy Networks <br />of local control, protecting Western Slope needs, and opposing transbasin diversions. A <br />number of the stakeholders expressed concerns that the roundtable process will not be able to <br /> <br />achieve their desired outcomes. <br />C S B <br />URRENT YSTEM ROKEN <br />These nine respondents focus on various needs, including local government, <br />environmental, and recreational. What binds them together is their strong opposition <br />to market-driven allocations of water and dissatisfaction with current water law and <br />management in Colorado. They are supportive of cooperation between the basins and <br />generally supportive of balancing co nsumptive and non-consumptive needs. <br />Analysis of Survey Statements of Support: Members of this cluster are: <br /> Supportive of non-consumptive needs, c ooperation between basins, balancing water <br />supply and demand, and balancing consum ptive and non-consumptive uses; and <br /> Strongly against protecting existing individual water rights, using the market to <br />manage water resources, and transfers to high-growth sectors. <br />Examples of Desired Outcomes of Colorado <br />Desired Outcomes of Colorado Basin Roundtable <br />Basin Roundtable Respondents: <br />Respondents: Individuals from the roundtable <br />want local government water needs, not market <br />“Basin-wide solutions based on good <br />forces, to drive water policy decisions. <br />policy, not market forces.” <br />st <br />“Adequate water for the 21 Century” <br />Desired Outcomes of External Respondents: The <br />external stakeholders are from both western and <br />eastern Colorado. Their desired outcomes are <br />Examples of Desired Outcomes of External <br />very critical of current policies and practices in <br />Respondents: <br />Colorado. Most of these stakeholders focus on <br />“Development of policies through informed <br />recreational and environmental needs, but some <br />and educated legislation” <br />stakeholders focus on municipal water issues. <br />“Insistence of strong water conservation <br />The common theme among the desired <br />measures on the Front Range.” <br />outcomes of these stakeholders is their critical <br />eye toward current policy. <br />“A moratorium on water deals/projects <br /> <br />until solutions have been agreed upon.” <br />West versus East <br />“Colorado is a shining example of waste” <br />“Colorado has some of the worst water <br />All five clusters have respondents from both the <br />laws in the nation regarding the public’s <br />western and eastern slopes, suggesting some <br />ri g ht to float throu g h private lands.” <br />shared values throughout the state. However, <br />west and east respondents differ from each other. Regardless of cluster, many West Slope <br />respondents are seeking outcomes related to protecting their water from transmountain <br />diversions. However, this shared goal is driven by different <br />concerns. For example, in the Protecting Consumptive <br />Key Finding 2.1: Even when <br />Needs cluster, Western Slope respondents want to protect <br />respondents on the East and <br />their water to allow for future growth on the West Slope. In <br />West sides of the state share <br />contrast, in the Protecting Non-Consumptive Needs <br />similar priorities (e.g. protecting <br />cluster, Western Slope respondents reject additional <br />non-consumptive uses of <br />transmountain diversions because it will take water out of <br />water), they may be seeking <br />rivers and create recreational and environmental problems. <br />very different outcomes. <br />Colorado Institute of Public Policy 21 of 64 <br />