Many mentions are made that if this money is set aside we lose control of what the money will be spent on. Would we not be able to stop any action that effected viable white water in the west?
Spoken like a true laywer. I like to spend my time enjoying the river, not fighting special interests money and their army of attorneys.
No, we would not be able to stop them. $2 billion is a significant amount of money, and once approved, will have a life of its own with the vultures to feed on the carcass. --They are swarming right now, I can see them very clearly...look! --
The NON-endorsers do not have the resources to waste on attorney fees, fighting bad projects. There is barely enough to fight Ref A.
Vote NO on A.
Ken, with respect, your thinking is reversed. Vote NO on A first, then we don't have to fight bad, narrow minded, water projects.
Vote NO on A.
Natural flows will not exist in the future. We will continue to grow in population and flows on western rivers will be effected.
Ouch! That is fatalist. --"Uh-oh, here come the class III rapids, hey...let's just give up and swim!"
Natural flows will continue to exist in the future, if the river community fights narrow, corporate, selfish business goals. Vote No on A.
The extra flows might give us an extra week of prime water.
--Let's just sell the whole damn state for a extra week. What do you think we can get for the Poudre?
As I think about this I would rather see storage at the source (High mountain lakes) than massive dams in Arizona and Utah.
--"Hey Joe, what's the plan for the weekend? Oh, I'm going to float the 10th Mountain Division Dam-to-Dam route, how 'bout you?"
We need to stop dams in AZ and UT as well. We have enough dams already. No more. And we have enough gambling as well. Does this country have to dam every mile of river, and put a slot machine at every bus stop?! Enough is enough already, sheeeesh. Vote NO on A.
This proposal is a revenue bond, right. So, charge (revenues) aggressive users of water more. Exponential pricing structures. That's the referendum to support. If residential users consume greater than 8,000 gallons on average per month, quadruple the cost (per 8,000 gallons). Commercial/industrial users will be charged quadruple for excessive consumption, over 50% of the Dec/Jan average. Money/cost changes behavior. Vote NO on A.
Ken, I think, your thoughts, are unthinkable. Vote NO on A.