Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The State Engineer has taken an active role in water adjudi- <br />cation proceedings; <br /> <br />Abandonment lists have been developed and litigated; <br /> <br />A satellite monitoring system is being implemented; <br /> <br />Record keeping, reporting and administration are being <br />upgraded; and <br /> <br />Rules and regulat ions for groundwater development and use <br />have been developed and litigated. <br /> <br />The success and wisdom of any of these programs is subject to <br /> <br /> <br />debate. However, the point is that, taken together, they repre- <br /> <br /> <br />sent evolving state water policy, developed wi thin Colorado's <br /> <br />unique constitutional framework of water rights ownership. The <br /> <br /> <br />development and evolution of these programs is an open, public <br /> <br /> <br />process. <br /> <br />It has become poli tically expedient to state that "Colorado <br /> <br />needs a state water plan." Many of those who express this posi- <br /> <br />tion fail to state how they would implement the plan, what it <br /> <br />would do, and why it would be better than the existing system. <br /> <br />For example, traditional water development interests have <br />advocated a statewide tax for the development of large storage <br />projects. Clearly, a plan would have to be deve loped for the <br />financing and construct ion of such projects. The problem wi th <br />this approach is that there is no current need for big project <br />development in Colorado, except by the Front Range municipalities <br /> <br />-9- <br />