Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"area-of-origin" concerns might be found in addressing the way we plan <br />for and develop future water supplies along the Front Range. <br /> <br />SOME ISSUES OF STATEWIDE CONCERN <br /> <br />Waste of Public and Private Funds: It is clear that our <br />independent efforts to secure 'individual water supplies is wasteful <br />and counterproductive. The institutional independence of water <br />supplies throughout the Denver Metropolitan Area causes isolated <br />surplus and shortage of water, and a premature need for additional <br />water supplies. This was demonstrated in the Two Forks EIS and became <br />a part of the permitting controversy. <br /> <br />Furthermore, our individual approaches have magnified the <br />complexity and expense of competition for our water resources, <br />assuring that every new appropriation or "change of use" will be <br />challenged by many other parties. <br /> <br />What did we spend for Two Forks? -- $40 million? <br /> <br />What about AWDI? -- $30 million? <br /> <br />And another $15 million or so on Gunnison? We are approaching <br />$100 million in expenditures on water planning and not a drop to show <br />for it. <br /> <br />Drv UP of Aqricultural Lands: A second issue of statewide <br />concern which has intensified these confrontations is the potential <br />dry-up of some of our most productive agricultural lands. Over the <br />years, thousands of acres of agricultural land have been dried up as <br />irrigation rights are sold and transferred to municipal water use. <br /> <br />Rural economics have been hurt. The local property tax base in <br />rural communities has contracted. Financing for schools, fire <br />protection, libraries, trash disposal, and many other community <br />services have suffered. As agricultural production in a community is <br />reduced, many related businesses also suffer -- from retailers to seed <br />suppliers to clothing and hardware stores, restaurants and movie <br />theaters. In the long run, this may threaten the integrity of <br />Colorado's rural communities and agricultural economy. <br /> <br />And these impacts may be contrary to the desires of most <br />Coloradans. Colorado State University conducted a poll last summer <br />which suggested that 73 percent of Coloradans would give highest <br />priority to water uses that sustain agriculture. Only 10 percent <br />would give highest priority to growing cities. <br /> <br />Environmental Consequences: Environmental Consequences are also <br />often associated with water transfers, and federal and state law <br />precludes us from ignoring these consequences. These concerns were <br />not anticipated a century ago when we setout to "fully develop" our <br />water resources. Now, however, these concerns impose new challenges <br />on our ability to use Colorado's water where it is most needed. <br />Unfortunately, environmental consequences are very difficult to <br />measure or predict, and that makes them very easy to fight over in the <br />government bureaucracies and in the courts. <br /> <br />5 <br />