My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
IBCC Representative Comments
CWCB
>
Interbasin Compact Committee
>
DayForward
>
IBCC Representative Comments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 11:54:16 AM
Creation date
9/17/2008 12:15:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Interbasin Compact Committee
Title
IBCC Representative Comments on Visioning
Date
3/6/2008
Interbasin CC - Doc Type
Correspondence/Memos
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Southwest Basin <br />Jenny Russell <br />Status Quo <br />• Will have competing uses and continue to make tradeoffs. <br />• In my area also see agriculture coming out of production. <br />- i.e., Montezuma County, San Miguel County, and the eastern area of Dolores <br />County and Dove Creek. <br />• Due to land development pressures, energy boom will also hit San Miguel County. <br />• Water quality impacts from oil and gas that can impact water supplies. <br />• Need water on the West Slope for aesthetic values and recreation. <br />• Do not think looking to the West Slope for water for the Front Range is realistic. <br />• Continued pressure on West Slope for Front Range water supplies. <br />Alternative <br />• For so long have looked at water out of context. We need to look at water and land <br />use together. Cannot look at water as a thing apart from everything else. <br />• We need to look at the interconnections between water options and land use. <br />• People on the Front Range are also concerned about sprawl and loss of <br />agriculture. <br />• Do not want to see Colorado lose our agriculture and ability to feed ourselves. <br />• Tax incentives and economic incentives to keep agriculture in production. <br />• Not being forced to address issues locally because workers are living in remote <br />communities, i.e., Telluride situation and other mountain communities. <br />• What do we want for this state? Does this vision accommodate 2 to 3 million more <br />people? <br />• We know there is going to be growth; how do we control the growth? <br />• Rep. Curry approach at this is a good first act at how it will need to be done. <br />• What is the point of a state visioning exercise if the state does not have role in <br />implementation? <br />• Beauty of IBCC is being able to have discussion to lead to better answers. <br />• Difficult Issues: <br />- Land use tied to water supply. <br />- Growth tied to the vision of Colorado in location and kind of growth. <br />- State role in implementation especially with interaction local governments need <br />to be explored. <br />24 <br />I:\INTERBASIN COMPACT COMMITTEEWISIONS FOR COLORADO WATER SUPPLY FUTURE\RESPONSES TO VISIONING AND MARCH MEETING\IBCC REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS.DOC
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.