Laserfiche WebLink
<br />did not need to take an active role. Under such a policy, the <br /> <br />state was at neither financial nor political risk. <br /> <br />Third, entities within the state grappled with the issue of <br /> <br />transmountain diversions. Denver, the Colorado River Water <br /> <br />Conservation District and others litigated over the issue, but <br /> <br />the doctrine of compensatory storage was also developed through <br /> <br />negotiation and political compromise, and was implemented in <br /> <br />Senate Document No. 80 and in the Water Conservancy District Act. <br /> <br />Since the mid-l960's, Colorado has been confronted with new <br /> <br /> <br />realities in the development, use, and allocation of its water <br /> <br /> <br />resources. Colorado's system has responded and will continue to <br /> <br />respond to these new realities. <br /> <br />First, beginning with the Nixon administration deemphasis on <br /> <br />reclamation, to the the Carter hit-list, to the Reagan emphasis <br /> <br />on local cost-sharing, the availability of federal financing of <br /> <br />reclaimation projects has virtually disappeared. Although not <br /> <br />successful in every case, the state has responded to this new <br /> <br />reality in a number of: wilYS: <br /> <br />A construction loan program was established, administered by <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board, through which the <br />state has authorized the expenditure of $105 million, repre- <br />senting total project costs in excess of $200 million; <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board prepared a paper <br /> <br />addressing the dilemma of water project financing in <br /> <br />-5- <br />