My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00007
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:04:20 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 9:59:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1993
Title
Proceedings 1993 Colorado Water Convention
CWCB Section
Water Conservation & Drought Planning
Author
Robert C. Ward
Description
Front Range Water Alternative and Transfer of Water from One Area of the State to Another
Publications - Doc Type
Brochure
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
186
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
<br />I have three significant expectations of this Convention: <br /> <br />(1) I hope that we can share information and compare <br />opportunities for assuring future Front Range water supplies in the <br />post-Two Forks era. <br /> <br />(2) I also hope we can review several proposals intended to <br />address the economic and environmental effects of transferring water <br />from one area of the state to another. As we evaluate these <br />proposals, we must keep in mind our responsibility to assure that <br />adequate water supplies will be available for future needs throuqhout <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />(3) Finally, I hope we can clarify the role we may want state <br />government to play in addressing both the Front Range water supply and <br />area-of-origin issues. <br /> <br />THE CURRENT SITUATION, AFTER TWO FORKS <br /> <br />The Denver Metropolitan area is expected to grow by more than 30 <br />percent within 20 years. The Two Forks EIS in 1988 projected a water <br />supply shortfall of approximately 98,000 acre-feet by the year 2010, <br />and a shortfall of approximately 163,000 acre-feet by the year 2035. <br />Although these projections may change over time, we have every reason <br />to believe that additional water supplies will be needed. <br /> <br />Since the EPA veto of Two Forks, water supply planning efforts <br />for the metro Front Range communities have proceeded in a piecemeal <br />fashion, with little direction or momentum. This is unfortunate <br />because it will require ~ cooperation, not less, to assure that <br />adequate water supplies are maintained through other alternatives. <br /> <br />The Denver Water Board has decided it will no longer play the <br />lead role in securing water supplies for the Metropolitan area. Some <br />of the suburban water agencies have formed the Metropolitan Denver <br />Water Authority; others have formed the Front Range Water Authority. <br />Still others are independently pursuing new water sources to enhance <br />existing supplies. <br /> <br />In addition to these efforts by government, many controversial <br />efforts by private entrepreneurs have been launched: American Water <br />Development in the San Luis Valley; Union Park in the Gunnison; the <br />Colorado Water Supply Company proposal in the Lower Arkansas River; <br />and several others. <br /> <br />Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on legal and <br />engineering fees. And, in the final analysis, very little has been <br />accomplished to meet the needs of the Front Range. <br /> <br />Our water wars have focused attention on the potential economic <br />and environmental impacts associated with the transfer of water from <br />one area of the state to another. Some have even proposed legislation' <br />or constitutional amendments to restrict such transfers. <br /> <br />But' we must ask ourselves whether the ~ solution to these <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.