My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01268
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01268
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:30:12 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:18:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8054.100
Description
Water Salvage - Water Salvage Study - HB 91-1154
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
12/6/1990
Author
Natural Resources La
Title
Background Documents and Information 1991 - Report on Irrigation Water Supply Organizations
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />000986 <br /> <br />One of the major factors in the changing trustee relationship of the district board is the <br /> <br /> <br />change in the makeup of tbe underlying land use. In many districts tbere is a larger percentage <br /> <br /> <br />of urbanized lands within the district, yet urban people (who are more likely to express <br /> <br /> <br />environmental concerns) are not getting a voice in district decisions. In a district in which <br /> <br /> <br />water users are more urban is the district board truly representing the interests of its <br /> <br /> <br />constituency? The primary goal of most district boards is to maximize the amount of water that <br /> <br /> <br />can be used, yet this may not reflect the views of the majority of users who are underwriting <br /> <br /> <br />the costs of district operations, Such a situation seeIllli to exist in the Northern Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />Water Conservancy District Most of the residents of the cities of Boulder and Fl. Collins <br /> <br /> <br />don't realize that they pay taxes to support water policies of a district with which they may not <br /> <br /> <br />necessarily agree. In contrast, urban water user representatives intervened in the pending <br /> <br /> <br />Central Utah Project legislation and effected a compromise reflecting environmental concerns, <br /> <br /> <br />This occurred even though urban users had only two votes (they account for 90% of the <br /> <br /> <br />revenues of the district) compared to the tWelve votes held by agricultural users (who account <br /> <br /> <br />for 10% of the revenues of the district), <br /> <br />Are there any examples of districts trying to redefine the changiIig relationship between <br /> <br /> <br />the board and the users in order to address new issues? Most examples have occurred when a <br /> <br /> <br />district has confronted a problem that originates in its boundaries such as the drainage problem <br /> <br />encountered by Westlands Water District, and may respond .to external pressures to change in <br /> <br />its own interests (i.e., fear of litigation). Although in the case of Westlands, it has been the <br /> <br />Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California, and not the District, that have attempted to <br /> <br /> <br />solve the drainage problem. <br /> <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.