Referendum A: a drinking binge with bad consequences | SummitDaily.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Referendum A: a drinking binge with bad consequences

“Whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fighting.” It’s an old Western saying that hasn’t been heard much for at least the past 25 years.

But last summer’s drought changed all that. You need only to drive through a neighborhood on the Front Range, past the brown lawns, to know that the issue of water has gotten everyone’s attention.

You’ll be hearing a lot about Referendum A leading into the fall. It’s a measure, if passed, that will allow the state to issue up to $2 billion in bonds for local water districts, municipalities and private organizations to finance new water projects. On the surface, this initiative makes sense. But dive deeper, past the good intentions, and you find more unanswered questions rather than solutions.



It’s been said that water issues are 10 percent law and 90 percent politics, and politics is where this story begins. Referendum A began life as Senate Bill 236. It’s important to note that not one Western Slope representative and only one senator, Republican or Democrat, would sign on for the bill. The sponsor of the bill, state Sen. Jim Dyer, R-Littleton, needed one more sympathetic senator to sign on. Sen. Lew Entz, R-Hooper was willing to do so only if he could include provisions from another water bill of his that was defeated.

Entz sponsored another bill, SB 126, which was passed into law and allows unlimited bonding in $500 million dollar increments. So in addition to the bonding authority that already exists, SB 126 now adds an additional level of funding options.



Now, back to SB 236. There has been a 127-year historic tradition that water bills are assigned to the Agriculture and Natural Resources committee. Not this time. That tradition ended when the bill was cleverly steered into a pro-Front Range committee to assure it wouldn’t be killed.

At this point, it should come as no surprise to you that SB 236 passed the House with only one single Western Slope representative voting in favor of it (Entz, whose district includes a few partial Western Slope counties, was the exception). The governor signed the bill, and now the referendum is teed up for a statewide vote in November.

Worrying about protecting Eagle County’s watersheds from such a vague and open-ended referendum that could affect Western Slope interests, I spent a week calling around the state to get the straight story from the people involved. I talked with the key groups that represent our interests: the Colorado River District, Colorado Water and Conservation Board, the Water Quality and Quantity Board and Club 20. I also spoke at length with our state legislators, Sen. Jack Taylor and Rep. Carl Miller.

More than a dozen critical flaws were exposed, of which I will share some of the biggest:

n These bonds may very well be rated with junk bond status. It’s important to know that financing for water projects is not a current problem. As stated earlier, water providers already have the ability to issue bonds themselves, and no project is being delayed because of lack of funding.

n There is no legislative or public oversight: The referendum calls for the governor to start a water project by 2005, but no project under this $2 billion plan ever comes back for legislative approval. These bonds are meant to be paid by user fee increases, which means there will be no voter approval for increases that will inevitably come.

n It’s writing a blank check to the government. The referendum does not specify any projects or how they would be picked. It takes time to evaluate the value of a water project responsibly. All the experts I spoke with said the only projects that could be fast-tracked for a 2005 decision would be highly speculative.

n There is zero protection for trans-basin diversion (pumping the water back to the Front Range), mitigation or compensation. All Western Slope elected officials are given a clear mandate on water when we sign up for our jobs – don’t allow the Front Range to take water from the Western Slope without mitigation or compensation.

Sadly, the only benefit I heard given by most of the appointed or elected representatives I spoke with is that it gives the governor a good sound bite: “Save Colorado Water.” That is also the name of a campaign fund that’s raising $2 million dollars to get this referendum passed.

As a commissioner for Eagle County, my first duty is to protect the sufficiency of water and quality of our environment for all our residents. As a citizen of Colorado, I know that both Eastern and Western Slope interests need to work closely together to plan for the future responsibly.

I think the last thing you want to hear from an elected official are the words “trust me.” I agree. Without any provision for oversight or accountability, Referendum A is a drinking binge that could leave generations to come with a very bad hangover.

Arn M. Menconi is an Eagle County commissioner. He can be reached at

Menconi@eagle-county.com or (970) 328-8615


Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.

Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.

Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.

 

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User