# Prop DD



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

As you suggest, "what is DD really about?". Who sponsored this? Who decides what to do with the $$$$$$. Farmers? Developers? Republicans? I don't trust any of these groups to do what is right for water conservation, rivers, wildlife or Coloradans in general. Sorry farmers and developers, I know what you want. Republicans....., well, never mind.

I'd prefer to know very specifically what I'm voting for even though I am a very strong advocate of sin taxes to cover the costs to society for societal harms and voluntary taxes to satisfy some ones stupidity to pay for societal betterment and punishment taxes to just generally say you are an idiot(such as gambling in general).

Any insights on DD would be appreciated. Otherwise, I say vote NO to undefined "water projects". So far it seems to be worded for suckers to vote yes. On this I'm willing to change my mind with enlightenment about the objective of DD.


----------



## NoCo (Jul 21, 2009)

More I look into this, there is a water plan thats goals sound good for the Colorado river but it does not specify any real plan.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

I did a little reading up on it and its certainly pretty vague but what is clear is that the funds, after paying for some gambling habits counselling and administering the division of sports betting, the rest goes to the Water Plan Implementation Cash Fund which is administered by the Colorado Water Conservancy Board. 

This article does a pretty good job of explaining where the money will go and what it could be used for...

https://www.aspenjournalism.org/201...colorados-water-plan-but-what-does-that-mean/

Seems like a large emphasis is on managing the water and maintaining the flow out of Colorado into Lake Powell and beyond. This could mean water conservation efforts, paying water rights holder to give up their share and leave it in the river and a lot of other things.


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

GeoRon said:


> Who decides what to do with the $$$$$$. Farmers? Developers? Republicans? I don't trust any of these groups to do what is right for water conservation, rivers, wildlife or Coloradans in general. Sorry farmers and developers, I know what you want.  Republicans....., well, never mind.



Blind rage and derangement syndrome?


You should probably bother to do the smallest amount of research before you vomit up anymore diarrhea of the keyboard.


Perhaps remove the beam in your own eye before you disparage others. 



"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."


----------



## Infidien (May 27, 2013)

noahfecks said:


> Blind rage and derangement syndrome?
> 
> 
> You should probably bother to do the smallest amount of research before you vomit up anymore diarrhea of the keyboard.
> ...


Don't be so coy, tell us how you really feel!


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Thank you EM for the 'enlightening' article. Considering the sponsors, most supporters and stated purposes this article defines; this "smallest amount of research" as noahfecks suggested leads me to support DD. But what a back ass-ward way to fund a good cause. The stated purposes are so important that they should be completely funded($100m) directly perhaps by water use taxes or property taxes. Better this tax raising $16m from gambling half-wits then no funds at all; a sin/voluntary/punishment tax to pay for hopefully a good cause.

I'm concerned that some future administration might direct the money into 'nefarious' activity such as what the current EPA and Interior departments are doing with regard to subverting their better purposes resulting in the corruption of these organizations. As long as Colorado stays purple to blue then we can perhaps count on these $$$$$'s being used for a good cause and not used for sucking rivers dry.


----------



## copyfrank (Jun 4, 2011)

Proposition DD provides a funding mechanism for the Colorado Water Plan. This is a very comprehensive document that is the result of 10 years of negotiation/collaboration between 9 different river basins. Among other things, it provides funding for river restoration, protecting flows for recreational use, and meeting Colorado’s legal obligations to provide water in the Colorado River for downstream states.


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

GeoRon said:


> As long as Colorado stays purple to blue then we can perhaps count on these $$$$$'s being used for a good cause and not used for sucking rivers dry.



Tribalism = a complete lack of objectivity. If you think that both sides don't steal from the peoples coffers to line their pockets you are a fool. Plenty of examples out there of D's shifting funds to fleece the people or fund pet projects.


You know what would actually prevent these funds from being misappropriated in the future? People abandoning the my side/your side mentality and taking an objective look at politicians and policies regardless of the letter that follows. Doing some research before you form an opinion, and not spreading unverified crap every chance you get.


I will remain against this bill because there are too many Ron's out there for this plan to work. The funds will never go to support the work they tell us it will. Hey by the way, where is all the pot money?


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

noahfecks said:


> Tribalism = a complete lack of objectivity. If you think that both sides don't steal from the peoples coffers to line their pockets you are a fool. Plenty of examples out there of D's shifting funds to fleece the people or fund pet projects.
> 
> 
> You know what would actually prevent these funds from being misappropriated in the future? People abandoning the my side/your side mentality and taking an objective look at politicians and policies regardless of the letter that follows. Doing some research before you form an opinion, and not spreading unverified crap every chance you get.
> ...


noahfecks, we always seem to be on opposite sides of the fence.

Yawn.... 

Please, we are trying to have an adult conversation here where someone can state an opinion based on limited information, and respectfully change an opinion based on new information. The info in my mailed ballot and associated primer is understandable, very limited. I welcome new information.

Please give me some new information other than tribalism the result of simple baiting. If "R's" did anything other than disable environmental(river, wildlife and human-kind) protections, destroy the inheritance of our children and trending toward screwing me as a retired or middle income professional; I might have more interest in your thoughts regarding D's vs R's. 

Considering that, Colorado is blue, at worst purple and hopefully red is dead. 

Considering that Putin has a "red" association; oh, well, never mind.


----------



## NoCo (Jul 21, 2009)

Wow. This went red and blue... they both suck in their own way. I was just trying to figure out if this water plan would be beneficial to me as a boater. The water plan sets goals but has no clear way of achieving them. I was hoping to be enlightened. As for sports gambling, who cares how idiots decide to waste their money. Not my concern i just dont want to be dooped into voting for something that hurts our river access, or only leaves me a trickle. I've read an article from an Aspen paper that shows that the ad campaign money for DD came from mainly the gaming industry but also from some ag group. From my experience, the ag industry does not always see eye to eye with us.


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

GeoRon said:


> noahfecks, we always seem to be on opposite sides of the fence.
> 
> Yawn....
> 
> ...



You should come out and do some target shooting with us some time Ron. Maybe we can even teach you how to pee standing up.


Not an R, not a D, honestly I dislike them about equally. That people think the end goal of one or the other is to serve the people is baffling.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

NoCo said:


> Wow. This went red and blue... they both suck in their own way. I was just trying to figure out if this water plan would be beneficial to me as a boater. The water plan sets goals but has no clear way of achieving them. I was hoping to be enlightened. As for sports gambling, who cares how idiots decide to waste their money. Not my concern i just dont want to be dooped into voting for something that hurts our river access, or only leaves me a trickle. I've read an article from an Aspen paper that shows that the ad campaign money for DD came from mainly the gaming industry but also from some ag group. From my experience, the ag industry does not always see eye to eye with us.


If as you say you care about rivers you'd realize that R's rarely do anything to benefit the health of our nations rivers, wetlands, wildlife, forests, wildernesses, public lands, climate or private river runner access. Just saying.

I don't see anything nefarious about campaign money coming from gaming and ag(Full disclusure. I'm not a fan of gaming. I do like ag except when they waste and pollute waters and wetlands.) 

Legalized gaming can hopefully be properly monitored and taxed as opposed to illegal gaming which is always criminal and never taxed. 

Ag of course doesn't want to be taxed for being among the largest water users in the state. Besides, family owned ag is hurting already. In other words, they want someone else to pay for the solutions for a problem that they substantially cause, dried up rivers. 

I'm surprised DD campaigning is not being likewise funded by development for the same reason.


----------



## Chief Niwot (Oct 13, 2003)

I will follow Gary Wockner's lead on this and right now he is a no on DD.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Chief Niwot,

Share with us please.

First, who is Gary Wockner, why is he so important and what is his contribution to this thought process leading you to decide NO? I guess I could search "Wockner" but that would relieve you perhaps of having the responsibility of expressing an independent opinion/interpretation. So please stand up and not be led and tell us why you think whatcha think. I and perhaps we would appreciate that. 

Again, your interpretive input is most welcome on this potentially critical decision(aka, our vote). Hey man, I voiced my opinion to the point where I was told that I need to learn how to pee. Can't get worse than that(As if I care. Let me change that. I do care. No one is gonna take hold of mine to show me how.).

Thanks Chief,
Ron


----------



## rwhyman (May 23, 2005)

American Rivers is in support.

https://www.americanrivers.org/2019...s-supports-proposition-dd-and-you-should-too/


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Chief Niwot said:


> I will follow Gary Wockner's lead on this and right now he is a no on DD.


I checked on Gary. Nobel, admirable but short sighted thoughts. Virtually no solutions. Under DD an immediate objective is to put water back into the rivers in any way possible such as buying out farmer water rights.
https://www.greeleytribune.com/opin...-dd-it-will-dam-and-destroy-colorados-rivers/

His concluding remark in this link is that fossil fuels should pay for a solution which he totally blames on "fossil fuels"(FF)(climate change). 

Gary, Mr Niwot, this problem started long before FF's contributed to our Colorado problem of dry river beds and degrading riparian health. 

Get real Gary. You are using a popular scapegoat of the liberal left in a fashion that destroys yours and our credibility(considering that I'm a member of the liberal left). You want to poke your finger in the eye of the right even worse than I do(Greeley NewsPaper).

Let me say that even if "fossil fuels" up'ed the money to result in some solutions as he demands; first, it will likely never happen; second, it is not likely to happen soon; third, the solutions will likely at this point be the same.

Given the opportunity I'd proudly shake Gary's hand but then wag my finger in his face and scold him for not being a realist; a frequent problem of the far left and far right. 

These are just my opinion.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

GeoRon said:


> Chief Niwot,
> 
> Share with us please.
> 
> ...


Gary Wocker is a founder and the current executive director of Save the Colorado and lives and breathes everything to do with the Colorado River and its management with an emphasis on maintaining the Colorado in a as free flowing a manner as possible. They are among the leaders of the movement to drain Lake Powell. Definitely a bit of tunnel vision and certainly very biased towards that view...but is certainly one of the hardest working advocates for River Runners rights on the Colorado too.

I don't intend to get political with this and see how it can be beneficial or detrimental to both sides. Some parts are concerning and others not. There is certainly municipal support for this in addition to conservationist and agricultural support as Denver Water is a sponsor and supporter of Prop DD and of the Water Implementation Cash Fund.

Its certainly a bit concerning know that funds from Prop DD could be used to build and maintain dams....but its also potentially useful for Conservation and keeping water in the Colorado River as well.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

A couple of things:

If it's the Colorado Water Plan, we're looking at really big picture stuff. There may be dams involved, likely studies on water use and availability, planning, development, etc. There may also be stuff like whitewater parks, or boat chutes at diversion structures (Silver Bullet on the Ark used State water project funds), and things like that. 

I'm not supportive of legalized gambling. Gambling is an addiction that can get really expensive, that has social consequences and can really screw up the lives of the addicts and their families. With this in mind, I don't really care what the money's used for, I don't support it. If we, as a people, want to fund the great projects, conservation, and other things we shouldn't need to legalize something that's destructive to peoples' lives to do so. This is a tax that'll fall very heavily on some, while many of us who enjoy the benefits will pay little monitarily but may have to pick up the pieces of shattered lives around us. 

-AH


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

Read about the issues, "be informed, not influenced", most of all, everyone please *VOTE!*


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

noahfecks said:


> You should come out and do some target shooting with us some time Ron. Maybe we can even teach you how to pee standing up.


noahfecks, we have butted heads long enough that I consider you a close friend. I did that with my mother-in-law long enough and that in-her-end is what we concluded.

I welcome your invitation to do some target shooting but let me define the terms of testing manhood(NO!!!!, you may not touch mine to teach me how to pee). 

You will compete with my SO, let's call her a petite woman of about 120#'s named "Peg". You, or anyone you call "us" will first run a quarter mile side by side with "Peg" before shooting. 

Trust me, you'll be about an eighth of a mile or more behind Peg reaching the shooting line, I think. At the run's finish line "Peg" will use her $2.5K biathlon rifle against any choice of your target perforators at 50 yards. 

I think before your man reaches with a 100 yards of the finish line "Peg" will already have put 5 open-sight holes within or near a circle defined by a 50 cent piece.

Let's not bring this up with Peg, a former state biathlon champion. She will consider us male jerks for even bringing this up. Well, maybe I am a male jerk for bringing this up.

Your friend, 
Ron 

Let's go boating.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Complex! 

I welcome our feedback for what it matters concerning our collective vote.

Andy's social concern about social decay are relevant. EM's thoughts are likewise deeply thoughtful.

For me, time to think.


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

Peg sounds like a hell of a guy, I would boat or shoot with her any day.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Not a fan of gambling. I do not see the connection in any way. Why should sports betting pay for water conservation, dams, playparks. It just seems like another round about way to lose track of our tax dollars in an off season election. (Yes, taxing gamblers who don't count somehow.)


----------



## H2Obug (Oct 20, 2006)

*Any opinion from AW?*

I would be curious to hear AW's opinion....Evan, do you have anything to share with the forum?


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

For what it is worth(one vote), I decided to vote yes on "DD". I read the AR write up provided by rwhyman and all the links to articles therein.

https://www.americanrivers.org/2019/...ou-should-too/

1. Sports betting is inevitable.
2. There is no way to stop people from spending money foolishly.
3. Taxes from gambling are going to a good cause, our cause(supposedly).
4. That good cause needs seed money to grow.
5. More jobs in our gambling wastelands(sorry, BH/CC and CC).
6. American Rivers supports DD.


----------



## capino (Feb 23, 2013)

Colorado Trout Unlimited is yes for DD
https://coloradotu.org/blog/2019/10/ctu-supports-proposition-dd-a-letter-from-the-executive-director


----------



## gyrogyrl (Jul 9, 2004)

The revenue generated through Prop DD will be used for implementation of the Colorado Water Plan.

https://www.colorado.gov/cowaterplan


----------



## gyrogyrl (Jul 9, 2004)

It's all driven by TABOR - the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, which extremely limits our state budget. Any increase in state taxes (versus fees) has to go to vote of the people.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

gyrogyrl said:


> The revenue generated through Prop DD will be used for implementation of the Colorado Water Plan.
> 
> https://www.colorado.gov/cowaterplan


Thanks Dede.

There are lots of things that'll be funded by Prop DD. This includes infrastructure spending (dams, diversions, etc.), programs and lots of other stuff. Maybe there'll be some whitewater parks and boatramps, but this won't be the main focus of the spending. I just read in a bill that the State's water well inspection program would be staffed to their mandated number of inspectors with Prop DD funding. 

*Off Topic Threadjack:* As an example of TABOR's effect, the State's water well inspection program has only had half the number of well inspectors it's mandated to have (by law) for years. And as a result, the well inspection program has been so shitty that there are lots of shitty contractors out there. And there are _enough_ shitty water well contractors that the state-wide industry trade group has even paid a lobbyist for several years to beg the legislature to properly fund the program and put more inspectors in the field to oversee their own industry. Just *let that sink in.* Can you imagine the oil industry asking the EPA to send out more field inspectors? Or the Homebuilders Association asking for more stringent building inspections? That's how bad it's been. PM me if you want to know more...

-AH


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Andy, do you now support DD?


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

No. I'm sick of having to sell our souls to get money for what should be standard government-funded things like critical water infrastructure. I oppose sports gambling. Why should we allow one more thing that ruins lives and families just so we can fund things we need anyway? I'm close to someone who grew up in a family of a gambling addict. The father had a well-paying job but the family was destitute because of his gambling habit. Except when he won big, then after he paid the loansharks and overdue bills he'd come home with boxes of pizza and sodas for the family.

Look at it this way - What would you think if someone said that if we legalized heroin, part of the taxes raised would go to fund pre-school childrens' health care? Would you support that?

This is what TABOR's brought us to. 

-AH


----------



## JLorimer (Sep 29, 2014)

The money in the State Water plan is an effort to plan for demand management among other things. Each basin round table cake up with their own sections. Colorado Water law is very clear on priority dates and methods of diversions and use for each water right. However, that doesn’t mean that the priority dates provide a logical method able to sustain societies. Colorado is signatory to the Colorado River Compact (~1922) with all CO river states and which defines how much water must get To Lee’s Ferry. 

I believe a good portion of this money will allow for compensation to farmers who temporarily fallow fields ensuring that we meet our state line and Lee’s Ferry flow requirements. If we don’t, then the Feds get involved in state water appropriations... by curtailing them.

Vote Yes! This primarily stems from how to handle the results of climate change. Increasing populations don’t help.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Fix TABOR!


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

Tabor isn't broken!


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Hi Noahfecks, we meet again.

For once we agree. Tabor is functioning as intended, which is to destroy representative government we americans are so proud of and forcing our legislators to choose between underfunding education, underfunding infrastructure, underfunding social programs, underfunding parks/recreation/lands,wildlife, etc, etc. After years of this underfunding Colorado now ranks last and very poorly in all of these catagories by many measures.

Now we are faced with poor choices such as legalizing a form of gambling to underfund improving our river ecology and water supply.

Vote yes on CC and DD!


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

Actually the purpose of Tabor is to force the politicians to have good ideas that will work before they come to the taxpayer and request additional money. They don't need any other bills to properly fund any of the projects you brought up, just the spine to come to the taxpayer with a clean proposal and a plan to actually fix the things that they broke before we write the check. 



There have been several other times they have come to the voters with ideas to increase taxes and it has passed. The reality is that they squandered the money, again I ask, where is the pot money? Did they fix schools? Are our roads any better? Blown on foolish, unnecessary endeavors like art walks and cultural diversity. Now they want a blank check with no accountability, why don't you give me Peg's wallet and I will let you know how much I needed after it's all spent.


Social programs are not underfunded, but the unchecked flow of freeloaders are putting a strain on the system.


Liberals measure success by how many people their programs help, conservatives by how many people no longer need them.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

noahfecks said:


> The reality is that they squandered the money, again I ask, where is the pot money? Did they fix schools? Are our roads any better? Blown on foolish, unnecessary endeavors like art walks and cultural diversity.


That information is publicly available. I'm not saying every dollar of marijuana tax revenue is being used in the best possible way... only that the information of where it is going is out there if you care to read it, and I don't see any evidence of it being allocated for things like art walks.


_ First, the regular state sales tax (2.9 percent) is collected on consumer goods. While this tax was initially collected on both medical and retail marijuana sales, retail marijuana was exempted from this tax through S.B. 17-267. Since July 1, 2017, the general state sales tax has only applied to sales of medical marijuana and non-marijuana products (i.e., t-shirts and other novelty items). General sales tax revenue related to marijuana is credited to the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund (MTCF) and is used to support a variety of state programs and services. The allocation of money in this fund is discussed in more detail below.

 Second, a special sales tax (15.0 percent) is collected on retail (but not medical) marijuana sales. Of the total amount collected annually, 10.0 percent is allocated to local governments based on the percentage of such revenues collected within the boundaries for each local government. The remaining 90.0 percent state share of special sales tax revenues is allocated among three funds:
1- 71.85 percent is transferred to the MTCF and annually appropriated for a variety of programs and services; 
2- 12.59 percent is transferred to the State Public School Fund and may be appropriated to the Department of Education for the State’s share of total program funding for school districts and institute charter schools6; and 
3- 15.56 percent is retained in the General Fund and is thus available for appropriation in the fiscal year in which it is collected.

 Third, a marijuana excise tax (15.0 percent) is applied to the average market wholesale price of the product being sold or otherwise transferred from a retail marijuana cultivation facility. The average market wholesale prices are periodically set by the Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division. As required by the State Constitution, the first $40.0 million of excise tax revenue raised annually from retail marijuana wholesale products is credited to the Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund (PSCCAF). Money in this fund helps pay for local K-12 school construction projects through the Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) program, which is administered through the Colorado Department of Education. Pursuant to H.B. 18-1070, starting in FY 2018-19, the greater of $40.0 million or 90.0 percent of excise tax revenue will be credited to the PSCCAF. Any excise tax revenue that exceeds the amount transferred to the PSCCAF is credited to the Public School Fund, which is a constitutionally created fund that generates income to support public K-12 schools. From FY 2013-14 through FY 2016-17, a total of $141.0 million from marijuana excise tax revenues has been credited to these two funds, including $107.0 million to the PSCCAF8 and $34.0 million to the Public School Fund.

The breakdown of the distribution of the Marijuana Cash Tax Fund is available here starting on page 580:_ 

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy18-19apprept_0.pdf

_but essentially $132 million is divided up amongst The Department of Agriculture, The Department of Education, The Governor's office, Health Care Policy and Financing, Higher Education, Human Services, Judicial, Labor and Employment, Local Law Enforcement, Affordable Housing Grants, Public Health and Environment, Public Safety, Regulatory Agencies and Transportation._


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

IN FACT, I can validate that between $5-10k of that has come to Chaffee County each of the last 3 years and been granted to a non-profit I volunteer for to take underprivileged youth out on field trips like hiking in Browns Canyon and fishing the Arkansas River...


----------



## Creature 1 (Aug 12, 2010)

noahfecks said:


> Actually the purpose of Tabor is to force the politicians to have good ideas that will work before they come to the taxpayer and request additional money. They don't need any other bills to properly fund any of the projects you brought up, just the spine to come to the taxpayer with a clean proposal and a plan to actually fix the things that they broke before we write the check.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said


----------



## Creature 1 (Aug 12, 2010)

Well said Noah


----------



## NoCo (Jul 21, 2009)

Sorry everybody. I started this thread cause i couldn't figure out if DD was good or bad for us as boaters. Sorry it turned into Facebook politics.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

NoCo said:


> Sorry everybody. I started this thread cause i couldn't figure out if DD was good or bad for us as boaters. Sorry it turned into Facebook politics.


Not sure what you expected... simple topics constantly get derailed around here and politics is one of the most contentious subjects to discuss. Honestly this has stayed on topic better than I expected.


----------



## co_biscuit (Feb 13, 2016)

As context, I have worked in water education, river restoration and water management in CO for 15 years. Several people on this thread have accurately described how DD money would be spent. The grant program it would go to is currently split up between all sorts of activities, including recreation development, river restoration, development of new ways to keep water in rivers and water infrastructure for municipalities. Likely to stay that way in the short run, but things can always change. The money currently available funds lots of good work in CO and while I see some things funded that I don't agree with, on the whole it's positive. I voted for DD because of all this. If you have concerns with the funding source, which is perfectly legit, vote no. Hope that helps.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Thank you NoCo for bringing the topic up. It was very important to discuss. I had my vote changed by becoming better informed.

Anytime you talk about governing you are talking politics. DD is about governing our shared use of water. 

Hopefully we can get smarter about governing our shared use of water and that DD is seed money toward making that happen.


----------



## NoCo (Jul 21, 2009)

Save the Poudre is asking for a no vote on DD


----------



## pilom (Dec 28, 2010)

Some people were asking about AW's opinion on DD. https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/34325/ They strongly endorse it as well. 

Personally I voted for it as I don't care about sports betting and the water plan needs more funding. The unwritten understanding about the water plan is that, if we don't spend the estimated $100 million a year between now and 2050, the deficit will be made up by buy and dry (the practice of city water managers buying out farmer's water rights completely and letting their farms go fallow). It isn't like we don't have enough water for the people moving here, it's that we can't have BOTH water for all the people moving here AND irrigated agriculture at the same level without spending $100 million a year.


----------



## Rapid Resolver (Jan 31, 2010)

The vast majority of projects and priorities in Colorado's Water Plan are paid for by municipal rate payers. Traditionally in CO, growth pays its way by new development paying fees, citizens pay their way by paying their monthly water bills, and large projects are voted on by the public and paid for with bonds or the Army Corps of Engineers helps design, build and pay for them. This is not funding for huge water supply projects. These huge projects are largely a by-gone era, the end of which being the veto of Two Forks. 

The $100M per year gap (of which this $29M will make a small dent) is for for projects that rate payers and new development don't pay for. These are projects for small town water systems, for non-profits working on stream rehap for fish, for plans that reduce the risk from fires and floods, rehabilitate streams, or make landscapes resilient to climate change.

Vote Yes on DD. Completely a no-brainer for Coloradoans. The CWCB (who controls the grant-making system) is made up of good people. This is not some deep-state conspiracy. The state legislature made sports betting legal and then referred this to the people to verify that we want the money to be used for to pay for the funding gaps for CO's Water Plan. They did this to protect the money being swept into another use by future legislatures. 

So much work has gone into this by people who know and care. Do they know all the answers and where every dollar will go out into the future, no. It's up to the river basins (Basin Roundtables) to submit their projects for funding.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Mixed emotions..... 

There can be no joy of the public approval and sponsoring of any type of gambling.

Obviously, it is up to our special interest to make sure that this is not a f'ed up situation. 

We should be united to make sure that this money is used wisely.


----------



## NoCo (Jul 21, 2009)

Still bot sold. If this w is such a well thought out plan like some one posted here then why is the execution of this plan such a secret? I hope im wrong but it still smells funny.


----------

