Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />(except to the extent that S.B. 97 may do so), it is clear that these <br />values are important to a broad segment of Coloradans. Among these <br />values are the recreational satisfaction which instream uses yield, <br />the aesthetic attributes of flowing streams, and the concern for main- <br />tenance of ecological integrity in aquatic environments. Furthermore, <br />non-consumptive uses also reflect economic values since recreation <br />and tourism generate significant amounts of income for many Colorado <br />businesses. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />SUMMARY: ISSUES CONFRONTING COLORADO <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />From the setting described above emerge a wide range of familiar <br />conflicts and controversies. They include concern for the preservation <br />and enhancement of irrigated agriculture, conflicts over transbasin <br />diversions, questions about the use of weather modification as a means <br />of augmenting scarce water resources, conflicts over provision of water <br />supplies to Front Range municipalities, concern for the maintenance of <br />stream flows, controversy over the use of water by energy conversion <br />developments, and many, many more. While these conflicts and contro- <br />versies are frequently stated as if they were separate and independent, <br />they are, in fact, components of two underlying issues. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The first and overriding issue is that of competition for a scarce <br />resource. The question is whether there will be enough water to go <br />around, and, if not, which uses should prevail. This issue has a geo- <br />graphic component as well, in that regions which are water short are <br />looking toward other areas of the state for future water supplies. <br />The second issue relates to the operation of the present water rights <br />system. As long as a market-based system is the exclusive means for <br />the distribution of water, it is clear that only certain values and <br />water uses can be taken into account, and that other uses and values <br />will be only partially accommodate~or ignored altogether. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Resolution of these two underlying issues, and the myriad contro- <br />versies which they encompass, will involve difficult and complex choices <br />about basic social values. For, in the end, it is not the various water <br />uses themselves that are in competition, but the basic values served by <br />those uses. Thus, the important question is not which uses should <br />prevail, but which values and which goals should be promoted. In <br />other words, one must ultimately ask which combination of water uses <br />will result in the highest "quality of life" for Coloradans. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Sin~e all values can seldom be fully satisfied at the same time, <br />trade-offs will have to be made and a balance of interests sought. <br />In order to foster an understanding of what choices are available to <br />Coloradans and what the consequences of those choices are likely to <br />be, the water study will analyze: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />I <br />