Article by Marcia Darnell And Ed Quillen
Water – November 2003 – Colorado Central Magazine
Referendum A, the ballot issue to fund water projects through bonds, is the hot button of this election. Proponents say it’s a way to pay to save water without taxes; those against it are afraid of the unspecified nature of such projects and fear a “big suck” of their liquid assets.
A roll call of those entities for and against the measure are almost — almost — divided by the Rockies. Western Slope people generally don’t want it, while most of those on the Front Range think it’s good.
Gov. Bill Owens made a plea for passage of Referendum A at Action 22’s fall conference. In his keynote address, Owens stated that he wants to increase storage of Colorado’s snowmelt, which accounts for 80 percent of the state’s water. He believes the bonds to pay for these projects can be repaid with the water saved. Small farms and ranches, he said later, could band together to garner funds to line ditches, strengthen dams, and enlarge reservoirs.
Attorney General Ken Salazar, the only Democrat holding state-wide office and the party’s likely candidate for governor in 2006, is opposed and has campaigned against it
Our U.S. legislators are split. Rep. Scott McInnis is against it. Sens. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard are neutral, although Campbell endorsed it last summer.
On the state level, Sen. Lewis Entz is neutral. Rep. John Salazar, an Alamosa Democrat, chairs the “Vote No on A Committee,” so his stance is clear. Rep. Carl Miller, a Leadville Democrat, is opposed, while Sen. Ken Chlouber, a Leadville Republican, is listed as a supporter.
In the San Luis Valley, the coalition of all six counties, known as the SLV County Commissioners Association, is against Referendum A. So is the Rio Grande Water Conservation District.
The cities of Alamosa and Creede are officially opposed to Ref. A. Most Valley towns have taken no stand on the measure.
If Referendum A does pass, it could mean lots of lawsuits by those who want to keep their water, meaning a worse financial boat for those already hit by drought. And a flood of income for attorneys.
The San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District is against it. Action 22, a lobbying group for central and southeastern Colorado, could not take a stand because its bylaws require a super-majority, and opposition had only a majority among the board members.
That wasn’t an issue for Club 20, the Western Slope group — opposition there was unanimous at its September meeting in Grand Junction.
Northeastern Colorado has its Progressive 15 coalition, and that group voted to support it.
The commissioners in Chaffee, Gunnison, and Lake counties are all opposed. Custer County Commissioners expressed some doubts about whether Referendum A would provide any benefit to rural areas, but officially, the board is neutral.
