{"id":47546,"date":"2020-05-08T17:42:12","date_gmt":"2020-05-08T23:42:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.skyhinews.com\/?p=64563"},"modified":"2020-05-08T17:42:12","modified_gmt":"2020-05-08T23:42:12","slug":"survey-finds-support-for-river-district-ballot-measure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/local-news\/survey-finds-support-for-river-district-ballot-measure\/","title":{"rendered":"Survey finds support for River District ballot measure"},"content":{"rendered":"

The results of a survey to gauge voters\u2019 attitudes about the Colorado River Water Conservation District and Western Slope water returned some good news for the district. But due to concerns about the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, River District officials are still mulling whether to push ahead with a plan to ask voters to restore part of its original mill levy. <\/p>\n

River District general manager Andy Mueller said the overall
\nresults of the survey, which found that 65 percent of respondents would support
\na mill levy increase, were a ray of good news in an otherwise dark time. But at
\nthe board\u2019s April quarterly meeting, Mueller recommended that it postpone making
\na decision about whether to move forward on a ballot initiative until at least
\nits July meeting.<\/p>\n

\u201cGiven the economic devastation that is occurring throughout
\nthe district, the question we have to ask ourselves in July is: Isit
\nappropriate to go to the voters to ask for additional funding at this time when
\nthey are suffering such great economic hardship?\u201d Mueller said. \u201cI don\u2019t know
\nthe answer to that.\u201d <\/p>\n

The River District board is considering whether to ask
\nvoters to raise its property tax rate from a quarter-mill to a half-mill,
\ntaking its budget from about $4 million to $8 million. That works out to 50
\ncents for every $1,000 of assessed property value. One mill is the equivalent
\nof $1 per $1,000 of assessed value. <\/p>\n

According to numbers provided by the River District, for the
\nmedian home value in Grand County, at $344,895, the mill levy would increase
\nfrom $5.80 to $12.33 per year.<\/p>\n

For several days in mid-March, River District consultant Arvada-based
\nNew Bridge Strategy surveyed about 600 residents and voters via email and phone
\nto assess the feasibility of a ballot question. The survey results found that residents
\ntrust that the River District manages taxpayer funds wisely, and three out of
\nfive people said they would support a tax increase if it were on the ballot
\nmeasure in November. <\/p>\n

\u201cI think, overall, this is positive,\u201d said Lori Weigel,
\nprincipal of New Bridge Strategy. \u201cIt\u2019s pretty rare to see something testing at
\n60 percent or higher in Colorado these days. It speaks to the primacy of water
\nand people\u2019s concern about water in this part of the state.\u201d<\/p>\n

Survey-takers said protecting western Colorado water for
\nagriculture and preserving clean drinking water were the most compelling
\nreasons to vote yes on a tax increase. Eighty-eight percent found these reasons
\nconvincing. The River District is not a direct provider of drinking water, but part
\nof the organization\u2019s mission is to keep water on the Western slope.<\/p>\n

Women over 55 years old made up the backbone of support for a
\ntax measure \u2014 73 percent said they would back it. Residents across the
\npolitical spectrum supported a tax increase, but it found the most support from
\nDemocrats, with 75 percent saying they would vote yes. Fifty-six percent of
\nRepublicans were supportive.<\/p>\n

Mesa County<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Glenwood Springs-based River District, created in 1937
\nto protect and develop water supplies in western Colorado, spans 15 counties: Grand,
\nSummit, Eagle, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, Moffat, Garfield, Mesa, Delta,
\nMontrose, Ouray, Gunnison, Hinsdale and Saguache. The survey found broad
\ngeographic support overall, but the numbers were lowest in one key, populous
\ncounty: Mesa. Only 59 percent of survey respondents there said they would
\nsupport a tax increase. <\/p>\n

\u201cWhat it means to me is that we need to do better and make
\nsure that if there are places that others perceive we are not speaking and
\nadvocating well for agriculture, then we need to do it more uniformly,\u201d Mueller
\nsaid.<\/p>\n

Steve Acquafresca, who represents Mesa County on the River
\nDistrict board, said probably only a small percentage of voters know what the
\nRiver District does, and although the River District has ramped up its outreach
\nto Western Slope communities this year, more is needed. Those efforts, however,
\nhave been sidelined by the pandemic. The River District had scheduled a series
\nof State of the River meetings this spring, which were canceled. <\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a huge challenge,\u201d Acquafresca said. \u201cThat\u2019s a huge
\ndisadvantage of going forward with a question in 2020 if we can\u2019t get out and
\ndo the campaigning.\u201d<\/p>\n

He also pointed out that the results of the survey may no
\nlonger be valid because of its timing.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough some of the results look pretty good, all of that
\nwas done before the pandemic really impacted our Western Slope communities,\u201d
\nAcquafresca said. \u201cNobody had any concept of the economic consequences of this
\npandemic on big cities and small towns alike.\u201d <\/p>\n

For the median home value in Mesa County, at $218,601, the
\nmill levy would increase from $3.67 to $7.81 per year.<\/p>\n

Projects plan<\/strong><\/p>\n

River District staffers have also unveiled a fiscal
\nimplementation plan for how that additional funding could be spent should
\nvoters pass a ballot measure. Of the projected $4.9 million in additional
\nrevenue, $4.2 million of that would be spent on projects identified as
\npriorities by local communities and basin roundtables in five categories:
\nproductive agriculture, infrastructure, healthy rivers, watershed health and
\nwater quality. <\/p>\n

Some representative projects that River District revenue
\ncould help fund are the White River Storage Project; maintaining flows secured
\nby the Shoshone call; and the Windy Gap Reservoir connectivity channel. <\/p>\n

The state engineer is opposing the water rights tied to the
\nWhite River Storage Project in water court over concerns that the project is
\nspeculative and that the applicant, the Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District,
\nhas not proven there is a need for the water. The project would include a
\n90,000-acre-foot conditional storage right, and a dam and reservoir on the
\nWhite River between Rangely and Meeker. But Mueller said it\u2019s too early to know
\nwhat specific projects the River District\u2019s tax money might fund. <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWe can\u2019t say we would fund any one of those in particular;
\nthose are examples,\u201d Mueller said. \u201cWe are not making a commitment to funding
\nany of those that are listed.\u201d <\/p>\n

Aspen Journalism is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, supported by its donors and funders, that covers water and rivers in collaboration with The Aspen Times and other Swift Communications newspapers. For more, go to aspenjournalism.org. <\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The results of a survey to gauge voters\u2019 attitudes about the Colorado River Water Conservation District and Western Slope water returned some good news for the district. But due to concerns about the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, River District officials are still mulling whether to push ahead with a plan to ask […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[97],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-local-news"],"acf":[],"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-09-13 20:03:16","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"KIFT - The LIFT FM","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47546\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alwaysmountaintime.com\/kift\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}