Laserfiche WebLink
<br />which can afford to develop their own projects. Therefore, the <br /> <br />tax is needed subs id i ze pr.oject development for future use. I <br /> <br />don't believe this type of a "water plan" is in Colorado's <br /> <br /> <br />interests. The state simply has too many other pressing demands <br /> <br />for its capi tal dollars than for water:- project development to <br /> <br />meet an undef ined future need. Such a "water plan" is also not <br /> <br />justified by a need to capture Colorado's water before it is lost <br /> <br />to Lower Basin states. The allocations in the Colorado and Upper <br /> <br />Colorado compacts are based upon beneficial consumptive use. <br /> <br />Only by efficiently increasing actual beneficial consumptive uses <br /> <br />will Colorado' s entitlement be developed. Merely construct ing <br /> <br />unneeded storage will go nowhere toward accomplishing this goal. <br /> <br />Equally important, it would be imprudent for the state to <br /> <br />invest millions in major water storage projects without careful <br /> <br />consideration of other options and priorities. Current state <br /> <br />policies emphasize d~m safety rehabilitation, enlargement of <br /> <br />exist ing structures, and small project deve lopment. These all <br /> <br />represent alternatives which can increase the actual beneficial <br /> <br />consumptive use of water on a statewide basis, in a more effi- <br /> <br />cient, cost effective, and environmentally sensitive manner. <br /> <br />Except for any remaining projects which could be federally <br /> <br />funded, state policy leaves la rge project development to those <br /> <br />who can afford it. <br /> <br />Many environmental interests argue that a state water plan is <br /> <br />necessary to increase the efficiency of water use in Colorado. <br /> <br /> <br />However, such a plan cannot dictate basinwide water management, <br /> <br />-10- <br />