PUB00095

• Year: 1988
• Title: Colorado Water
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Author: League of Women Voters of Colorado
• Description: A publication to present facts, background and issues regarding water in Colorado.
• Publications - Doc Type: Other

WHAT COULD THE FUTURE HOLD?

If Colorado had a water resource
management policy to provide for balanced
agricultural domestic, industrial, energy and
recreational uses, what could we have?

. A more livable Colorado for future generations
. Protection of water quality and preservation of
instream values
. Preservation of agriculture as a viable part of
the Colorado economy
. Enhanced tourism and recreation values
. A more balanced economy for the entire state
and employment opportunities throughout the
state
. An energy development policy leaving water
available for other uses
. Less destruction of fragile ecosystems

Page 30

If present trends continue, the future of
Colorado seems to be going toward ever
increasing Front Range urbanization. "Water
flows uphill toward money" is an old Colorado
maxim, and is still true today as water flows from
all parts of the state to the Front Range, because
a water right Is a property right with a cash value.
The result is the market place is determining how
water is allocated in the state and the
interdependence of the whole Is ignored.
Thus, the conclusions of a 1973 Colorado
State University Report are even more germane
today than when they were written: "There must
be greater and more satisfactory state and
public involvement in control and management
of distribution and use of all water within the
state.
"If efficient rules and regulations are to be
formulated, if Colorado is to move toward a
more efficient use of its water resources,
aliocating and reallocating them in the best
Interests of the citizenry, then a more viable
decision-making process must be established.
Knowledge of water resource, demands on the
resource, consequences of use, and the
involvement of the public require a new level of
communication and interaction among the
public, special interest groups, the state
legislature, water managers, state agencies,
local governments and the water users.'"

T "Economic, Political and Legal Aspects of Colorado Water
Law," Radosevich, Nobe, Meek and Flack, Environmental
Resources Center, Colorado State University, Completion
Report Series #44, February, 1973.

HOW CAN WE MAKE WATER
DECISIONS MORE RESPONSIVE
TO A VARIETY OF NEEDS?

Public interest in recreation, quality of
environment and aesthetics seems to imply a
willingness to spend money in a way that does
not always yield the highest cost-benefit ratio
possible. If the public is to know what
intangibles are possible at what cost and to
decide what it is willing to pay, then all practical
alternatives, including both tangible and
intangible benefits and costs, would have to be
presented. Water planning could relate more to
man's activities, needs, desires and ability to
manage water if alternatives were presented.
Using the alternatives approach, greater
consideration could be given to estimating
effects of water proposals on all the people of
the state and all income levels. Citizens and
governments at all levels could be involved in the
decision making process, rather than simply
reacting after a decision is made. Undoubtedly
this would require new techniques and put
greater demands on water planners to predict
conditions and consequences, and to provide
new alternatives for changing needs.
But if Colorado is to determine its own
destiny, citizens need to institute changes
necessary to make it possible. Can we look
ahead and plan for the future? Or do we adopt
a policy of laissez faire and let the market place
make the determination?