We received a press release yesterday from the public relations folks at Denver-based ‘Onsight Public Affairs’… making the case for a YES vote on Proposition DD this coming November. If you received your Colorado Blue Book in the mail, you already know that this measure was referred to the voters by the Colorado state legislature. Because DD would create a new tax — on ‘sports betting profits’ — the General Assembly needs voter approval to put this law in place.
Presumably, sports betting could be legalized by the state legislature without voter approval. It seems to be the tax question that requires your ‘YES’ vote.
From the October 1 press release:
Ag groups endorse Prop DD as down payment on critical water needs
A coalition of agricultural groups announced their support today for Proposition DD, which asks voters this fall to tax casinos’ sports-betting profits to help conserve and protect the state’s water supplies. The coalition includes the Colorado Association of Wheat Growers, the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, the Colorado Corn Growers Association, Colorado Dairy Farmers, the Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Pork Producers, and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.
Proposition DD would generate up to $29 million annually for Colorado’s Water Plan by legalizing sports betting and imposing a 10% tax on casinos’ profits from sports wagers. The funds would provide an important down payment for water projects statewide that support agriculture, water storage and conservation, river health, and more. These projects are critical to enable Colorado to begin addressing the gap between water supply and demand so that farms and ranches have the water they need to thrive.
“The Farm Bureau and farmers across Colorado are proud to support Proposition DD. Most farmers and ranchers could care less about sports betting. But this is a smart way to pay for the critical water infrastructure that Colorado’s future needs,” said Chad Vorthmann, Executive Vice President of the Colorado Farm Bureau…
The press release also included endorsements from four other agricultural organizations. None of the statements, however, came from casino owners, who would apparently reap 90% of the profits from sports betting.
We’re not clear why the casino owner endorsements were left out?
Sports betting is not currently legal in Colorado, and Proposition DD proposes to accomplish not one, but three, changes to Colorado law in a single proposition: legalizing sports betting, authorizing a tax on the betting proceeds, and dedicating the taxes to “water projects and water related obligations.” I believe ballot measures in Colorado can legally address only a “single issue”… but our state courts would know more about ballot language violations than I ever will.
One more thing. Some of the money raised — if this curious Proposition is approved — will be used for “gambling addiction services.”
Sadly, if you vote YES, much of the money generated by Proposition DD would come from unfortunate people who are addicted to gambling.
But the casinos will be happy. The Proposition is predicted to raise $29 million in annual taxes, via a 10% tax on profits — meaning that the newly legalized casino profits would be in the $300 million range, every year, extracted from the pockets of… gambling addicts?
And the 10% tax? That will help pay for enormously expensive “water projects” — far into the future. Generally speaking, massive water projects are built via multi-year debt, so thanks to the flow of revenues created by Proposition DD, wealthy investors would presumably be very happy, as will water engineers and construction companies.
The gambling addicts… maybe not so happy.
We understand that water is essential to life on earth… and to the Colorado economy… and particularly to agricultural users such as cattle ranchers, dairy farmers, wheat growers. Many of these agricultural operations have “senior water rights” that pre-date the 1922 Colorado River Compact, and — legally — these agricultural users have first priority to divert water whenever there might be a shortage. Legally speaking.
Generally speaking, it’s Colorado towns and cities that would be hardest hit by a multi-year drought, at least in theory.
Here are a few quotes from a 2013 Denver Post article on the subject of a complicated $490 million water storage project that would siphon even more water from the Colorado River and send it across the Continental Divide to the Front Range:
Driven by drought, Gov. John Hickenlooper is urging President Obama and federal engineers to speed decisions on proposed water projects designed to sustain urban growth.
A letter to Obama seeks help spurring decisions on Denver Water’s diversion of 18,000 acre-feet of Colorado River Basin water from the west side of the Continental Divide to an expanded Gross Reservoir west of Boulder. A separate letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers asks that the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) — which would siphon the Cache la Poudre River into new reservoirs storing 215,000 acre-feet of water — be given a high priority.
Colorado faces “a significant gap in our supplies to provide water for future growth — a gap that cannot be met by conservation and efficiencies alone,” Hickenlooper began in a June 5 letter sent to the White House and copied to cabinet secretaries and agency chiefs…
That’s a pretty daring claim: that Colorado cannot possibly solve its ‘water problems’ through conservation. Recent forecasts suggest that Colorado’s population, currently about 5.1 million, might increase to maybe 8.5 million by 2050. If that’s a realistic projection, then — according to some experts — Colorado can easily meet its water issues through conservation and recycling. The technology is already there: low flow toilets, drip irrigation, new water treatment techniques. Newer and better technologies are already on the horizon.
What is not there: the political will to ‘Just Say No’ to more reservoirs. What is not there: voters who understand that they will be sunk deeply into debt — debt that will last for decades — and that all this additional debt might simply add to the amount of water that evaporates into thin air.
A couple more quotes from reporter Bruce Finley’s 2013 Denver Post article:
Hickenlooper’s quest for quicker decisions wins praise from water providers.
“Yes, we’re going to keep doing conservation. But you cannot conserve your way to a future water supply,” said Brian Werner, spokesman for the Northern Water Conservation District, which is driving the $490 million NISP project. “We’re going to have to store more of it. We’re optimistic that he gets that.”
But it irks some conservationists.
“Water projects that further drain and destroy Colorado’s rivers are a non-starter for us. The rivers already are in terrible shape,” said Gary Wockner, director of Save the Poudre, a Fort Collins-based NISP opposition group.
Water conservation “is the faster, cheaper, better alternative” to ensuring adequate water supplies, said Drew Beckwith, a Water Resource Advocates policy expert and organizer of a campaign to cut daily per capita water consumption across the seven-state Colorado River Basin to less than 90 gallons.
The people of Colorado value their rivers, for so many reasons. The water industry lobby, however, sees our rivers simply as a source of something wet, to fill bigger, more expensive reservoirs — funded with long-term taxpayer debt.