Laserfiche WebLink
Southwest Basin <br />John Porter <br />Alternative <br />• I agree with Peter Nichol's masters thesis, growth can not be controlled by <br />management of water. (I assume that means under our free democratic society). <br />• Therefore, to have a discussion about "what we want Colorado to look like 50 years <br />from now" is a growth issue & goes way beyond the purview of the legislatures <br />intent for the IBCC. <br />• Having said that, I welcome the discussion. I am anxious to learn what DNR hopes <br />to learn / gain / what direction the discussion provides for the future IBCC. <br />• I strongly believe that a growing economy is healthier to deal with than a declining <br />economy. <br />• Given that our economy is based on a free democratic society / free enterprise <br />system, the burden for providing water for that demand is the water providers <br />burden. Therefore, the water provider can not dictate the location nor the <br />quantification of growth. Supplying the water is a product of growth not a <br />prerequisite to growth. <br />• Assuming the front range remains the focal point of the state's growth, and water <br />providers strive to provide for the demand, without continuing the present trend of <br />drying up east slope agriculture, then Two Forks, the Big Straw, Northern's Yampa <br />pump back, or Aron Million's Flaming Gorge project (or some other yet to be <br />conceptualized and articulated project) has to move forward. <br />23 <br />I:\INTERBASIN COMPACT COMMITTEEWISIONS FOR COLORADO WATER SUPPLY FUTURE\RESPONSES TO VISIONING AND MARCH MEETING\IBCC REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS.DOC