< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Not long ago I was engaged in a discussion with a supporter of Referendum A, the ballot proposal which would allow the state to issue up to $2 billion in bonds for water projects. I mentioned one of my problems with it, namely that no water projects are specified on the ballot. The Colorado Water Conservation Board, a non-elected body, would make a list, and the governor would select at least one project from the list.
But that would happen after the election. Before the election, there's no way to know what projects Referendum A would finance -- presumably they're among the 600-plus proposed water developments on file with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
If we listed specific projects, that would lead to
two problems,
the supporter told me. One is that all
the people who were opposed to a specific project would be
energized to fight Referendum A. The other is that people
whose pet projects were not on the list would also oppose
Referendum A. Not listing any specific projects minimizes
opposition.
That's one way to look at it. Another is to note that if we Coloradans knew what we were buying with Referendum A, then it probably wouldn't pass -- or at least, that's what some supporters think.
That, in itself, is a pretty good reason for voting no, since even the supporters think you'd vote against it if you knew what Referendum A might build. Contrast that to the highway referendum in 1998, which listed projects and completion dates -- whether you like T-Rex and the other construction or not, at least we knew what we were supposed to get.
But the Referendum A supporters have provided some hints
about what they'd like to build. Alan Foutz, president of
the Colorado Farm Bureau, which supports Referendum A,
asked Where are we going to be if we don't begin to
store some of the excess water that's leaving the
state?
Where does this excess water
leave the state?
From the Western Slope, which is drained by the Colorado
River and its tributaries. Under the 1922 Colorado River
Compact, our state is entitled to consume about a quarter
of the river's average annual flow.
We already use a considerable portion of our share. Just how much remains depends on who's doing the arithmetic, but it's likely somewhere between 300,000 and a million acre-feet. That's the only major water supply that Referendum A money could develop.
Western Slope citizens fear that more trans-mountain diversions would jeopardize their farms, ranches, hydro-power plants, wildlife, tourism industry, rafting, fishing and way of life. Little wonder that on the Western Slope, Referendum A is about as popular as scabies -- especially since does not guarantee mitigation for the basin of origin.
Then there's the support group for Referendum A. Its
name is Save Colorado's Water,
and some statements
on its website border on demagoguery: While farms are
drying up and cattle are being sold off, our water is
keeping lavish Las Vegas fountains running all night. And
while Coloradans are carefully considering which day they
are allowed to turn their home sprinklers on, California
lawns are lush and green -- thanks to Colorado's
water.
Under the Colorado River Compact, Nevada is entitled to 300,000 acre-feet of water a year from the river.
We might think that desert fountains to entertain tourists are decadent forms of conspicuous consumption; others might feel that snow-making for ski resorts and irrigation for private golf courses -- both supported in recent years by the same Colorado Water Conservation Board that is supposed to direct Referendum A projects -- are similar extravagances.
As for California, it is entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet, and it has used more because we haven't taken our full entitlement. But agriculture, not green lawns, uses at least 80 percent of California water.
The implication from Referendum A supporters is that if we don't use all our Colorado River water in the very near future, then California will devise a way to take it permanently.
That was the fear in 1922, and that's why the Colorado River Compact was negotiated and approved by seven states and the U.S. Congress. It meant, and presumably still means, that Colorado doesn't have to race to build water projects just to protect its share of the river.
And if we decide to transport more Compact water to the cities of the Front Range, it will cost billions -- and with Referendum A, every Coloradan might get to pay, since the state is obliged to cover defaults.
Further, that additional water would support more metro-area suburbs, which would mean greater demands, which would mean more people to suffer from the next drought. So how is that a long-term solution, or indeed, much of a solution at all?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >