Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(2) New large industrial demands for water simply did not <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />materialize in the 1960's and 1970's to the extent <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />- ~>""'.. <br /> <br />anticipated, primarily because the oil shale industry did <br />not develop, and the timing and magnitude of future <br /> <br />industtial demands is largely indeterminate at this time. <br /> <br />A Framework for Reexamination <br /> <br />The conclusion that the strategy of the past 40 years will <br /> <br />no longer achieve the originally sought objective necessitates <br /> <br />a reexamination of how Colorado is going to proceed from here. <br /> <br />The Water Conservation Board recognized the need fot larger <br /> <br />state role in water development management planning. In <br /> <br />considering a new role, the State will be more proactive as it <br />assumes direct leadership in planning and development, There <br /> <br />are two major issues to be addressed as Colorado considers the <br /> <br />future of its water resources development: <br /> <br />(1) What are the most effective and efficient new goals <br /> <br />and objectives for development of the State's remaining <br /> <br />water entitlements? <br /> <br />(2) How much funding, on what terms, and to the benefit of <br /> <br />whom, should the State make available for water resources <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />development in Colorado? <br /> <br />Furthermore, when considering the future direction of water <br /> <br />resources development in Colorado, and the role of state <br /> <br />government therein, one must be cognizant of the constraints <br /> <br /> <br />and realities which now confront water development in <br /> <br />Colorado. These planning challenges include: <br /> <br />-5- <br />