Arguments for Referendum A |

Arguments for Referendum A

Cliff Thompson

Water usage during the recent drought depleted many reservoirs, resulting in restrictions on lawn watering, fee increases and financial hardship for people who depend on water for their livelihood.

– The program provides an opportunity for water users to work together on projects that benefit a number of users, but that may be too costly for individual users to build.

– Having a single state agency – the Colorado Water Conservation Board – evaluate and obtain financing for water projects may accelerate the construction of projects.

Arguments against:

– This could be the largest debt in state history. This debt authorization lasts until the Colorado Water Conservation Board issues the entire $2 billion and is repaid. With no time limit set in the proposal, Coloradans could be paying this debt back for generations.

– The program doesn’t identify specific projects to be funded to require public input on the selection of projects.

– Another financing tool is not necessary to address Colorado’s water needs. No feasible water project has ever failed for a lack of financing. Cities and other water users can already borrow money for water projects.

– Water projects can negatively impact the environment and local communities. For example, some water projects can flood scenic areas and damage wildlife habitat by changing water temperatures and eliminating or greatly reducing stream flows.

*Source:Colorado Legislative Council, a non-partisan research arm for the state legislature.


Support Local Journalism