Laserfiche WebLink
<br />URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF <br />THE FRONT RANGE <br /> <br />At present, 82% of Colorado's population <br />lives in the Front Range, an area running from <br />Fort Collins in the north to Pueblo in the south. <br />With relatively low unemployment, a well trained <br />work force, a number of schools and colleges, a <br />pleasant climate and many new industries, this <br />region has had large increases in population in <br />recent years. Many thousands of acres in the <br />region have already been subdivided and are <br />awaiting construction activity; many more acres <br />are still in agriculture but have absentee owners <br />who are holding the land for eventual <br />development. <br />If the state continues in the direction it is <br />presently heading, urbanization of subdivided <br />land could result in a strip city from Fort Collins <br />to Pueblo. What does the impact of such <br />development imply? <br /> <br />. The population might well exceed the carrying <br />capacity of the land, water, and air. <br />. Competition for agricultural land and water <br />could result in the loss of many sectors of <br />eastern slope agriculture. <br />. Ugliness, pollution and congestion could be <br />. ...ex~c;ted4o.be.!heres",ltefa"stfip'c~More' ... <br />people and more automobiles would result in <br />more air and water pollution and loss of open <br />space. There would be a loss of the traditional <br />Colorado amenities. <br />. Unless limitations of use and the control of <br />use are established, the adjacent mountain <br />areas could not be protected. Degradation of <br />the environment and loss of recreational <br />opportunities would result. <br />. Transmountain diversions would diminish <br />water supply for recreation in western <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />CAN THE CONFLICTS BE RESOLVED? <br /> <br />In Colorado's early years conservation <br />meant the impoundment of water for use by <br />agriculture, cities and industry. In recent years <br />conservation has come to mean the efficient <br />use of existing supplies by all users. In urban <br />areas efficient use includes the installation of <br />water saving plumbing fixtures, improved <br />lawn watering techniques that use less water, <br />a reduction of the amount of thirsty bluegrass <br />used in landscaping, increased utilization of <br />native plants and improvement of the <br />efficiency of distribution systems. For <br />agriculture it means more efficient crop <br />irrigation. <br />In Colorado, however, since a water <br />right must be put to beneficial use and can be <br />lost if not used in its entirety, there is no <br />.irlcentiveto'conserve; While,.ttiere'is'an <br />economic benefit if the entire right is sold, <br />there is no way to benefit economically from <br />efficient irrigation. Legislation has been <br />introduced, but never enacted, that would <br />allow conserved water to become an <br />economic asset. <br />Ways can be found for urban areas and <br />agriculture to share available supplies. Cities <br />could repair unsafe agricultural reservoirs to <br />increase the storage capacity and get the <br />right to the additional water; they could also <br />contract with agriculture for the use of water <br /> <br />in dry years and pay for the crop lost; or have <br />first use of the water and return treated <br />wastewater for agricultural use. <br /> <br />Efficiency and management of existing <br />supplies can decrease the need for additional <br />diversions from the West Slope to the Front <br />Range leaving the water available for <br />recreation and tourism requirements. The <br />state's minimum stream flow rights provide <br />sonie protection but are mainly junior rights <br />that might not be available in dry years; so <br />instream uses for environmental protection, <br />fish and wildlife and recreation require <br />additional protection. A recognition of water's <br />value for recreation and tourism could result in <br />sufficient water for these uses. <br />......'TnofdefloacliTeve.muluaf6enelifs . <br />among a variety of uses, water quantity and <br />water quality decisions must be coordinated. <br />Drinking water supplies, recreation, fish and <br />wildlife requirements and agricultural users <br />are dependent on not only the quantity of <br />water available but also on the quality of that <br />water. While many are urging coordination, no <br />action has been taken by the legislature. <br />A state water resources policy could <br />help ensure that water is available for all uses <br />throughout the state. Such a policy is only <br />now being seriously discussed. <br /> <br />Page 29 <br />