Referendumb A "This don't sound good!!!!" - Mountain Buzz

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-14-2003   #1
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 86
Referendumb A "This don't sound good!!!!"

Fellow Brothers & Sisters of the Colorado rivers.
I'm concerned, STATEWIDE ELECTION DAY IS Tuesday, November 4, 2003. Our play grounds are at stake. I'm no fucking lawyer, but this "Referendum A" don't soundgood. I'm sitting here reading thru the Analysis Of The 2003 Ballot Proposals, "the little blue book" they send you in the mail. Vague, is the word that comes to mind. Thats not good when we are talking about $2 billion not to exceed $4 billion total pricipal and intrust for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. What I want to know is have any of you fellow boaters out there done any homework on this, and should we as a boating community and forum be concerned?

Our rivers need our help.

Mountain is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-15-2003   #2
Posts: n/a
More info...

[Please take a minute or two to go to and check out reasons to not support the big dam bill. Also look at all the groups that oppose the referendum.

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2003   #3
Caspian's Avatar
Englewood, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1978
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 882
The news said last night that it was being opposed by the AG because it doesn't specify hardly at all how those funds are going to be spent or to whom they will be given. That's reason enough for me to vote against it, but it's also supposed to benefit private projects as well as public, supposedly. I'll be voting no and doing my part to conserve water.

Caspian is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-15-2003   #4
Posts: n/a
I will be voting NO NO NO!!!

Way too vague and gives the governor too much power and funds.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2003   #5
Mad Scientist/Creeker
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 805
This bill is no good, has no business even being proposed, has no love for the rivers we cherish and any and all boaters going to the polls should overwhelmingly be in opposition to this bill. Y'all need to get out and vote NO! Early descriptions in this post hit the issue right on the head like maxwell's silver hammer. This bill is like giving el presidente george w(hat the f*$% are you doing) bush, 2 billion dollars to reduce wildfire risk in any way he deems necessary. You know what their going to do. They're going to line the pockets of their friends the damn dam builders with the 2 bill from this bill, and that means more and bigger damn dammage across the state. Most of the large watersheds that were suitable for large dams have already been dammed up, so you know what they're going to do? Expand existing dams into even bigger dammage. And to top it all, there is even a proposal to damn Poudre Canyon! If this bill passes Larimer County could break out into civil war. What we need to realize is that we don't really have a water shortage. A huge percentage (~90%) of Colorado's water goes to agricultural use. There is plenty of water even in drought years. What we need is a bill forcing large agricultural corporations to make their use of water more efficient. Over half the water they use evaporates into the atmosphere, partially because they spray it directly into the air, rather than use drip technology, which by the way has been available for let us just say, a long time. Oh yeah, and stop the sprawl...more concentrated cities and communties means more efficient water use. And one more thing, Kentucky Blue Grass is NOT NATIVE TO COLORADO! Stop planting it in your [email protected]$%ing lawns. Anyone ever heard of xeroscaping! We live in a semi arid dessert. It doesn't rain much here if you haven't noticed. There are grasses native to Colorado out there that look just like Kentucky Blue Grass, except they are ten times more draught resistent and require very little municipal water. Why? Because they evolved in Colorado's dry ass environment. Spread the gospel and paddle with your soul hangin' out.
Evan Stafford
Cub boater: "What do the spiders mean?" Old fart boater: "Trust your intuition." CRCII
RiverWrangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2003   #6
Have paddled a Quest
Fort Collins, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 102
Vote NO on A

Referendum A is indeed a bad deal for CO boaters. The Colorado Water "Conservation" Board would have the financial green light to go ahead with what ever project they please. Note that only 5% of the bonding authority is set aside for conservation and repair of existing projects. The CWWA opposes referendum A, and has made a financial contribution to the Vote NO on A campaign. Here are some more links for info: **,00.html,00.html

This will be a close vote, so be sure to get the word out to all friends & family.

Marco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2003   #7
Posts: n/a
Yeah I'm against it too, but the ballot does specify that no new storage facilities would be created just improvements to existing facilities. It would be nice to know what 2 River basins they are talking about. Let me guess one starts with a C.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2003   #8
Have paddled a Quest
Fort Collins, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 102
Tricky ballot wording-

The proponents of Referendum A worded the ballot question to sound like the primary purpose is improvements to existing projects, but the majority of the funding from the bond initiative, $1.9 billion (out of $2 billion) would be available for new projects. Here is the ballot question wording straight from the blue "Analysis of the 2003 Ballot Proposals" book, p. 24 (bold added for emphasis):

Shall the state of Colorado debt be increased $2 billion, with a repayment cost of $4 billion, maximum total state cost, by an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statuetes providing for drought relief by the financing of improvements to water infrastructure in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, authorizing the Colorado Water Conservation Board to issue Revenue bonds for the construction of private or public water infrastructure projects costing $5 million or more...
Note that "improvements to water infrastructure" means that the infruastructure could be improved by building new projects. Further on, they specify how much of the funding would actually be spent on improvements to existing projects:

... setting aside $100 million to finance projects, or portions of projects, that augment or improve existing facilities or conserve existing water supplies without creating new storage facilities...
Marco is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
JOIN "KATIE'S KREW" AND HELP SUPPORT KATIE HILLEKE bkp Whitewater Kayaking 12 02-20-2007 06:31 PM
1st "Teaser" for "Hotel Charley... River of D thecraw Whitewater Kayaking 4 02-09-2007 06:42 PM
Missing my "Blue Balls" Gore Fest Party... vayo con dios Whitewater Kayaking 2 08-22-2006 11:33 PM
"For sale", "want to buy" postings?????? weeMac Support & Feedback 1 08-12-2006 02:14 PM
The "White Album" showing at Paddle Fest-World Pre bvwp1 Whitewater Kayaking 0 04-07-2004 08:10 PM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.