Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />establish a development fund, the money from which would be <br /> <br /> <br />available to provide assistance for future water needs in the <br /> <br /> <br />basin of origin. <br /> <br /> <br />Moreover, it seems unwise to focus only on prospective <br /> <br /> <br />consumptive uses. Many feel that the economic future of .the West <br /> <br /> <br />Slope is tied largely to recreation. In this context it may be <br /> <br /> <br />that instream flows will be more important in the future than <br /> <br /> <br />traditional consumptive uses such as agriculture. <br /> <br /> <br />As noted, the Colorado provision applies only to the upper <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado River basin. As a matter of general principle, there is <br /> <br /> <br />no reason why some form of protection should not be provided to <br /> <br /> <br />any basin of origin. Moreover, there is no good reason to limit <br /> <br /> <br />such protection only to projects undertaken by conservancy <br /> <br /> <br />districts. The same general issues are raised in any such <br /> <br /> <br />diversion. <br /> <br /> <br />In summary, the present Colorado approach s~ems inadequate <br /> <br /> <br />in several respects. First, it protects only the Colorado River <br /> <br /> <br />basin and only as against out-of-basin diversions by conservancy <br /> <br /> <br />districts. Second, it provides prospective protection only to <br /> <br /> <br />consumptive water uses--neglecting highly valuable recreational <br /> <br /> <br />and other instream values. Third, its requirement that consump- <br /> <br /> <br />tive uses not be increased in cost to future users is both vague <br /> <br /> <br />and inappropriate--at least as interpreted to require compensa- <br /> <br /> <br />tory storage. <br /> <br />38 <br />