My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
University of Colorado Law Review Volume 55 Issue 3 Spring 1984
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
University of Colorado Law Review Volume 55 Issue 3 Spring 1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/28/2014 2:36:04 PM
Creation date
11/28/2014 2:36:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Description
Plans and Studies: The Recent Quest for a Utopia in the Utilization of Colorado's Water Resources
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
418 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55 <br /> • eral capital.163 It now must adjust to complex state and federal <br /> regulation. <br /> Throughout Colorado's history, utilization of water resources <br /> has been decentralized. Water in large and small amounts has been <br /> available when there was a need and economic feasibility. <br /> What has been the result? First, there is water available for <br /> diversion in Colorado. The state's three largest river basins, the Col- <br /> orado, South Platte and Arkansas, have access to water when and if <br /> there is sufficient need and capital. That is no small achievement. <br /> California, Arizona, and many other western states cannot, with <br /> comparable assurance, make the same claim. <br /> Second, Colorado still has river systems that provide exceptional <br /> recreational opportunities and there is no reason they cannot be <br /> maintained. <br /> Third, Colorado has a large array of small and large opportuni- <br /> ties for developing water. There are funds to build them in this pros- <br /> perous state if local and state interests have the will to do so. It must <br /> be remembered that a combination of fiscal and environmental con- <br /> cerns, as well as the tradition of Colorado's entrepreneurial water <br /> system, cause the state to not have a role as a planner, builder and <br /> financier of water projects. <br /> • <br /> Fourth, Colorado has a framework for using water and estab- <br /> lishing policies for its use that adapt to change while the underlying <br /> rationale remains unchanged. <br /> Fifth, Colorado has talented individuals who know about water <br /> and who produce steady critiques and analyses of Colorado's water <br /> policies.184 <br /> Sixth, Colorado has a long and honored tradition of vigilantly <br /> protecting water to which the state is, or should be, entitled. <br /> Thus, even from the short list above, it can be seen there have <br /> been substantial benefits from the state's continuity and caution in <br /> asserting a state role in the use of our water resources. <br /> There have also been weaknesses. The state's delay in address- <br /> ing the use of ground water stretched our entrepreneurial water sys- <br /> tem to the breaking point. It has resulted in enormous expense in the <br /> San Luis Valley and elsewhere.186 <br /> There have probably been instances where the incremental con- <br /> 163. See supra note 22. <br /> 164. See, e.g. 53 U. CoLo. L. REV. 471-654 (1982). <br /> 165. See In the Matter of Rules and Regulations. . . in the Rio Grande and Conejos <br /> River Basins, 674 P.2d 914 (Colo. 1983). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.