Laserfiche WebLink
<br />() D"ll ~ )'3 <br /> <br />VI. Policy Issues <br /> <br />A number of policy issues must be addressed and resolved before salvaged or saved <br />water can be fully incorporated into the water rights system in Colorado. <br /> <br />A. Role of the State <br /> <br />Should Colorado take an active role in promoting and encouraging better water use <br />efficiency? It has always been state policy that water should be used wisely and beneficially, <br />and that waste is not tolerated. However, the state has primarily relied on private efforts <br />in a free market to accomplish this goal. Water users have resisted suggestions that the <br />state develop a comprehensive water management plan. Rather, the creation of a <br />specifically defined and transferable property right to the use of water, has permitted <br />economic forces to move water to its highest valued use. Is this a sufficient role for the <br />future? Public perceptions about waste, inefficiency, and conservation may demand a more <br />proactive approach. The equitable apportionment doctrine which invites federal judicial <br />scrutiny of wise resource use, as well as Colorado's current efforts to maintain compact <br />entitlements, may dictate a stronger state role. <br /> <br />If the state decides salvaged or saved water should be a component of a strategy to better <br />use its water supply it must then determine what types of efficiency measures should be <br />promoted. Salvage water, defined as changes in historical consumptive use, is least likely <br />to interfere with return flows relied on by others, but also has limited potential to add <br />significant supplies of water. Saved water, defined as changes in historical diversions can <br />yield larger volumes of water for new uses, but will require close analysis of return flow <br />patterns. Litigation over that analysis and the extent of the "no injury" rule can be expected. <br />Requiring review of salvage or saved water applications by the State Engineer may simplify <br />the fact finding process, and give other water users some protection without the expense of <br />objecting in water court. <br /> <br />If the state wants to take a more active .role in promoting efficiency it can do so using <br />either a "carrot or stick" approach, with incentives or regulations. Examples of actions which <br />might encourage more efficient operations are: removing current market barriers and <br />reducing transaction costs, funding programs designed to improve efficiency, and creating <br />new entitlements to water made available through conservation measures. Examples of <br />actions which could force more efficient water use include: more specific and tighter <br />definition of beneficial use, giving the State Engineer increased authority and resources to <br />curtail wasteful or inefficient practices, and regulation of agricultural return flows as a <br />nonpoint pollution source. <br /> <br />B. Resource Tradeoffs <br /> <br />Should wetlands, albeit artificial, be impaired to provide new water supplies? Does water <br />consumed by vegetation along ditches and farm fields provide a valuable aesthetic and <br /> <br />2~ <br />