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 />,nrl~ O?7 <br /> <br />at this time. Even in community districlli where water is close to the day to day lives of the <br /> <br />people, apathy is prevalent. Regardless, we should be reaching the public in terms of education <br /> <br /> <br />on these issues. <br /> <br />. Legislation <br /> <br />The type of legislation needed will depend on the identified objective, We first need to <br /> <br /> <br />agree on wbat districts should be doing; we need to define this more specifically. We probably <br /> <br /> <br />could agree on some basic goals such as districts should comply with environmental laws, <br /> <br /> <br />Assuming the following types of legislation are consistent with our objectives, the state could <br /> <br /> <br />adopt laws to force change such as: (1) require that districts within x number of years, will <br /> <br /> <br />consider conservation, etc" or hold hearings, etc., on tbese issues; (2) create a presumption tbat <br /> <br /> <br />irrigation districts can conserVe water and require tbem to report back to the state if they <br /> <br /> <br />determine tbat corrective action is not needed; (3) broaden the authority of irrigation districts <br /> <br /> <br />to require them. to consider issues such as conservation, water quality, etc., while not necessarily <br /> <br />requiring them to take any specific action on these issues; (4) require broader representation on <br /> <br />tbe district board; (5) empower district to decide if it wants an elected or an appointed board; <br /> <br /> <br />and (6) use financing powers as an incentive to effect change, and address the issue of profits <br /> <br />from water transfers. <br /> <br />Aside from legislation directed at the irrigation distriClli, a state should clarify concepts <br />to help put changeli into effect. For example, cha.nging the definition of beneficial use and <br />permitting the transferability of salvaged water; since districlli in some states (e.g., California and <br />Colorado) coDtrol much water use, such legislation will, in effect, be aime,d at ~em,". And in <br /> <br />53 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.