7777 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I have three significant expectations of this Convention: (1) I hope that we can share information and compare opportunities for assuring future Front Range water supplies in the post-Two Forks era. (2) I also hope we can review several proposals intended to address the economic and environmental effects of transferring water from one area of the state to another. As we evaluate these proposals, we must keep in mind our responsibility to assure that adequate water supplies will be available for future needs throuahout Colorado. (3) Finally, I hope we can clarify the role we may want state government to play in addressing both the Front Range water supply and area-of-origin issues. THE CURRENT SITUATION, AFTER TWO FORKS The Denver Metropolitan area is expected to grow by more than 30 percent within 20 years. The Two Forks EIS in 1988 projected a water supply shortfall of approximately 98,000 acre-feet by the year 2010, and a shortfall of approximately 163,000 acre-feet by the year 2035. Although these projections may change over time, we have every reason to believe that additional water supplies will be needed. Since the EPA veto of Two Forks, water supply planning efforts for the metro Front Range communities have proceeded in a piecemeal fashion, with little direction or momentum. This is unfortunate because it will require ~ cooperation, not less, to assure that adequate water supplies are maintained through other alternatives. The Denver Water Board has decided it will no longer play the lead role in securing water supplies for the Metropolitan area. Some of the suburban water agencies have formed the Metropolitan Denver Water Authority; others have formed the Front Range Water Authority. Still others are independently pursuing new water sources to enhance existing supplies. In addition to these efforts by government, many controversial efforts by private entrepreneurs have been launched: American Water Development in the San Luis Valley; Union Park in the Gunnison: the Colorado Water Supply Company proposal in the Lower Arkansas River; and several others. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on legal and engineering fees. And, in the final analysis, very little has been accomplished to meet the needs of the Front Range. Our water wars have focused attention on the potential economic and environmental impacts associated with the transfer of water from one area of the state to another. Some have even proposed legislation or constitutional amendments to restrict such transfers. But we must ask ourselves whether the ~ solution to these 4