PROPOSAL NUMBER: 018-03

PROPOSAL NUMBER: 018-03

PROPOSAL SUBJECT: The Green Party of Colorado oppose the passage of Referendum A

PRESENTER: Alison “Sunny” Maynard, GPCO Co-chair

TIMELINE EFFECTIVE:
Indefinite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Any plan for more water storage will focus on taking water from the Western Slope in order to support more development on the Front Range. It has to, because the Western Slope (notably the Gunnison River) is the only place where water is physically available (as well as legally available). The environmental impacts to the Western Slope from more transbasin diversions will be severe: dried-up streams mean loss of fish & wildlife habitat, as well as poor water quality in the trickle which will remain, and more dams mean loss of fish species. The economic impact on the Western Slope’s tourism-based industries (e.g., fishing, rafting, hunting, wildlife watching) will also be severe. We will end up with a dustbowl over there.

I believe the water sought will not only be to support new subdivisions on the Front Range, but to bail out existing subdivisions which were built in reliance on nonrenewable groundwater, largely in Douglas County. The city and county governments which approved these subdivisions knew that a source of renewable water would have to be found one day, yet approved these subdivisions without having such a source identified. They forced a possible crisis situation. The developers, as usual, made away with huge profits when these subdivisions were built, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill to correct the problem everyone knew would arise: that these subdivisions will run out of water someday soon. (If left unaddressed, this means these houses in Douglas County would be left without a water supply. A huge ghost town.)

The problem re: costs is also not simply the $2 billion pricetag, but the fact that the projects are not specified. We would be creating another huge slush fund to support water developers and their ilk — without any oversight, because the Colorado Water Conservation Board really does not oversee the developments it funds. The CWCB has a shameful history of spending public moneys on such things as private golf courses at Castle Pines and snowmaking equipment at Breckenridge, and not even accounting properly for the loans it makes. We do not want to entrust this state agency with more: it is unelected and unaccountable. I would like nothing better than to sunset this agency; instead, we will be making it more powerful.

These are apparently revenue bonds, so presumably would be paid back by revenues from water users from each of the projects as they come online. Not knowing the projects, it is impossible to analyze the costs and benefits of this proposal. However, there are lots of “groupies” who have a strong interest in bond issuance, in and of themselves — bond counsel, underwriters, etc. They make lots of money every time bonds are issued and may very well be the ones who benefit most from the proposal.

But the water developers in this state have an incredible thing going, themselves. In Southwestern Colorado, for example, there are four taxing districts which overlap each other. They exist only to tax and to build Animas-La Plata, and the millions these districts collect each year are funding Sam Maynes, a water attorney, and his firm and the consultants he anoints. The way it is with water conservancy districts is taxation without representation: people do not get to vote on the formation of these districts which tax them, have never gotten to vote on whether or not they want A-LP built, and cannot — by law — even dissolve the biggest & most predatory of these districts, the Southwestern Water Conservation District. We have good evidence that the tax moneys collected by these districts have been used to bribe Congresspersons: that’s why we can’t get rid of Animas-La Plata.

We need to protect our free-flowing streams, and if this means developers on the Front Range no longer make their big profits, so be it. I can live with that.

Hope that’s enough! I’ll make it less hostile when Kirstin and I get the press release together, and welcome input/changes from anyone. Sunny
IMPLEMENTATION – RESOURCES:
None

FULL PROPOSAL:
The Green Party of Colorado will oppose the passage of Referendum A, which is slated to go before the voters at the Nov. 4, 2003 election, which would create a $2 billion water financing authority to be overseen by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and which would allow local governments and water districts to use the authority to issue bonds to build new pipelines and reservoirs. Further proposed is that, if this proposal passes, a Position Statement for the GPCO will be drafted with Kirstin Marr, Media Director, to be incorporated into a press release.