BOARD00667 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W aterfor water Early efforts to address the effeCts on rivers ofthe removal of water by large diversion projects focused on building reservoirs. Reservoirs held water in reserve to help prop up rivers that have lost much of their natural flows to diversions. Once water is diverted from rivers, it can create economic, environmental, aesthetic and other problems, said Treece. "Now the rubric is much broader," Treece said. "It goes beyond requiring water-for-water." Some communities receive payments to offset the impacts of water removal, while others require stored water and still others can request economic development money. The singe legislative success on the issue, however, occurred in 1937 with passage of the Water Conservancy District Act which led to the creation of the Green Mountain and Reudi reservoirs, among others, to offset the effects of water diversions from Western Slope rivers. The problem is geographic and demographic. In Colorado, 80 or more percent of the populations lives in the cities of the arid Front Range, while 80 percent of the precipitation falls on the Western Slope. finding a way to get one to the other has spawned a number of ideas. Last fall voters trounced Referendum A which proposed floating $2 billion in bonds to build water storage facilities. Another, more comprehensive idea being floated is the Statewide Water Supply Initiative that looks at water supplies and water needs in each of the eight major rivers in Colorado. But it's being eyed warily. "It's the gold rope," said Long. "You're going to hang yourself. I'm concerned it may in the future be used against us. ,. Treece said the concept may cause the water needs of one area to overshadow the damage done in another area. Another statewide measure was the Colorado 64, a set of water-development principles agreed to by every county in Colorado. Those principles, however, haven't been tested yet, the panelists said. Keep it local Long and Treece said the best solutions to addressing impacts caused by removal of water from Western Slope rivers have been arrived at locally. "Legislatively, it has been a Quixotic quest to date," said water lawyer Hallford,'adding he is now seeing a shift in focus. "But if you talk about (water) transactions it's not a Quixotic quest. People have recognized that transmountain diversion needs to leave something for the basin of origin. Those transactions are going to been on-going. " Treece said many towns that have their economies tied to river flows are bringing those financial considerations into water diversion discussions. The water-rich and population-light Western Slope can't just say "no" to Front Range water development projects. Being able to develop water is like a private property right. You file a claim, s~mjlar to a mining claim, but the water is available on a priority basis wjth the first filers getting the first water. When water supplies are in tight supply - as they were during the drought of 2002 - the demand for water will likely create crisis decisions.