7936

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7936
• Author: McDonald, J. W.
• Title: A Primer On Colorado's Water Policies.
• USFW Year: 1988.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

be realized by one person to the exclusion of all others
(i.e., instream uses yield "public benefits" or "public
values"). Thus, until 1973, instream uses of water, and the
values associated with such uses, were not accounted for by our
water rights system. _
A corollary problem exists when the impacts, or costs,
which water diversion and impoundment imposes on some are not
compensated for. For example, since private property rights
are generally not attached to fish and wildlife resources,
those who enjoy such resources are not paid by those engaged in
water development for the right to "use" the affected fish and
wildlife resources (as, for example, with the irreversible
commitment of fish and wildlife habitat to a reservoir).
Similarly, not all impacts on the basin-of-origin resulting
from transbasin diversions are necessarily accounted for by the
marketplace, there being equity considerations which are not
reflected in the cost of developing such diversions.
In short, these are instances in which the marketplace is
unable to fully account for all of the values associated with
different uses of Colorado's water resources. In the words of
economists, "externalities-" cause "failures" in the marketplace.
Colorado has adopted three main policies in response to
these circumstances. First, the legislature passed an instream
flow law in 1973 (section 37-92-102(3), C.R.S.) which vests
with the Colorado Water Conservation Board the exclusive
authority to appropriate or purchase water rights for "such
minimum flows.._.as are required to preserve the natural
environment to a reasonable decree...." Appropriations by the
Board take their place in the priority system, rather than
being absolute requirements for minimum flows or bypasses of
flows at others' points of diversion. While there is much
debate about whether this statute provides enough recognition
of the values associated with instream uses of water, it
undeniably articulates Colorado's policy in this regard.
Second, in 1987 the General Assembly passed legislation
(section 37-60-122.2, C.R.S.) which specifies how state
government will decide the extent to which the impacts of water
resources projects on fish and wildlife should be mitigated and
the extent to which state financial resources will be devoted
to such mitigation. This law also provides state funding for
the enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. Again, much
debate attended the passage of this~legislation, but it can no
longer be said that Colorado does not have an explicit policy
for the mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts.
The third policy pertains to compensation to basins-of-
origin. The state's policy in this regard (section 37-45-118
(1)(b)(IV), C.R.S.) is selective in that it applies only to
water conservancy districts' exportation projects and has
-3-