Colorado has big water problems. But, Referendum A, on this November's ballot, is not the way to solve them. Referendum A would authorize the Colorado Water Conservation Board to issue $2 billion in bonds to fund water projects across the state. Sounds like a good idea? A deeper look proves it isn't.

For starters, Referendum A would obligate Colorado taxpayers to repay $4 billion in bonds plus interest. Our state has already borrowed billions of dollars to fund highway construction. To add to that staggering debt makes no sense today and burdens our kids tomorrow.

Second, this measure does not specify what projects would be funded by this huge borrowing. That means that Coloradans would be paying, for decades, for projects that may provide limited or no benefits to us, for projects that may help only private enterprises, for projects that may never be needed. We just don't know. And, if we don't know, we shouldn't saddle ourselves with crushing debt to give the state a blank check. As Republican State Senator Ron Teck, from Grand Junction, told the Boulder Daily Camera, "Approving Referendum A would be like borrowing $2 billion to buy a house that you have never seen, do not know the floor plan and do not even know where it is located."

Then, there's the issue of choosing which projects get funded through this borrowing. The Water Conservation Board would be able to recommend water projects, but the governor would get to choose which ones actually get money. That gives way too much power to the governor-any governor. It would be easy to turn these taxpayer dollars into a gravy train for your biggest campaign contributor or big bucks for your best buddy.

Right now, the best managed and most financially secure water companies and districts can borrow on their own, as they should. They also have access to $500 million in bonding authority that the Colorado Water & Power Authority already has. Many of these entities will find their own financing at lower rates than they could get from the state. That means that the applicants for these borrowed dollars are likely to be the riskier borrowers. Not a good bet for the state's taxpayers.

The idea is that the bonds would be repaid with user fees paid by water users. That's a sound concept. But, what happens if those fees don't cover the costs of repaying the bonds and interest? What happens if risky borrowers collapse, leaving the state holding the bag. Ultimately, we taxpayers hold that bag and the responsibility for repaying the debt. That is a risk we shouldn't take under any circumstances, but especially when we don't even know what we're borrowing for.

Besides the huge financial risk we would be undertaking for unknown projects and questionable value, we would also be splitting the state, never a good move. Most of the Western Slope of Colorado vehemently opposes Referendum A. A bipartisan coalition of political and business leaders, from both sides of the mountains, is fighting this ill-conceived measure because they believe it will destroy the cooperation they have developed on water issues over the past decade. They believe that both Western Colorado and some Eastern Plains counties could dry up as their water is sucked off to an ever-growing population along the Front Range. They oppose a blank check to anyone.

As is often the case with special interest ballot proposals, what looks good on its face can have devastating and unforeseen consequences. Referendum A is one of those proposals. Those who stand to benefit will spend large sums to persuade voters to vote for the narrow interests of a few, rather than the larger interests of the state. When we hear of the wonders of new water projects, we should also ask ourselves about the consequences of a blank check, a badly divided state, the risk of paying off bad debts, and the financial burden we load on our children. It is pretty clear that there is little advantage to most of us in Referendum A, and lots of peril, instead.