|
<br />C>
<br />C>
<br />en
<br />CJl
<br />co
<br />
<br />~l ~I--J-i J~7t '
<br />
<br />POINT OF VIEW, By Caswell Silver
<br />
<br />__~~_ h
<br />
<br />'"
<br />
<br />',-
<br />",,'Jo.#'~
<br />
<br />Some questions about Foothills
<br />
<br />THE POST EDITORIAL of June 22, "Media-
<br />tion for Foothills:' is beyond comprehension
<br />for anyone who has spent a liletime in the
<br />Western states as I have.
<br />Speaking of calling on. the fox to watch over
<br />the chickens, I am appalled at the idea of call-
<br />ing upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
<br />historically a self-serving organization. It is not
<br />only absurd, but criminal. I am neither for nor
<br />against the Foothills Water Treatment Complex
<br />because to date I have not seen a mustering of
<br />honest approaches to the problem by any,
<br />one.
<br />Nowhere in the press have I seen the follow-
<br />ing problems addressed:
<br />. How much water is eventually available to
<br />the Front P,nge corridor from currently devel-
<br />oped stream drainages? Whati! the highest
<br />and best use of such water?
<br />. How many other drainage systems does the
<br />Denver Water Board octopus have in mind and'
<br />at what cost and does the process have a limit,.
<br />or do we eventually have our National Guard
<br />take over Wyoming? Shall we continue to turn
<br />the Western Slope off as a poor relative?
<br />. How. much water can be saved by water
<br />meters? And, if mandating water meters for
<br />established users now getting a partial free ride
<br />lS,not politically palatable, why can't the Water
<br />Board which finds $t50 million easily lor con-
<br />
<br />~--
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />struction proj~cts find the $30 million to
<br />"grandfather ciause" oid users in on an install-
<br />ment basis or perhaps even tree of charge?
<br />. How many new residents can we supply by
<br />complete recycling? How much would it cost
<br />compared to all the grand schemes of the oc-
<br />topus?
<br />. What happens to downstream flow In the
<br />Platte River drainage if we recycle 100 per
<br />cent? Is the Narrows project then redundant?
<br />. If the issue is regional planning, population
<br />distribution and tand use,lt should not be'in the
<br />hands of carpetbaggers 01 the. Environmental
<br />'Protection Agency in Washington, and in this
<br />regard I have a love-hate relationship with Alan,
<br />Merson. On the other hand who else but Mer-
<br />son and John Bermingham have manned the
<br />
<br />. Readers are invited to express a point of view
<br />in this column. The Post does not necessarily
<br />agree with opinions aired here, but welcomes
<br />succint, thought-provoking essays on timely
<br />subjects.
<br />. Please address contributions to Point 01
<br />View, Editorial Page, The Denver Post, P.O.
<br />Box .1709, Denver, Cola, 80201. Unused mate-
<br />riat cannot be returned unless accompanied by
<br />stamped, self-addressed envelope.
<br />Today's Point 01 View is by Caswell Sitver. a
<br />Denver geologist.
<br />
<br />.
<br />battlements? Only another innocent like Rep.
<br />Tim Wirth would suggest the U.S. Army Corps;!
<br />of Engineers as disinterested or competent. If
<br />our governor and city fathers had been Willing"
<br />to seize the nettle and bring the issues of un',~'
<br />limited growth versus quality of life into phase"
<br />with a long-range' water pOlicy for the Fronb'
<br />Range Corridor, I would probably now be re."
<br />ceptive to the ultimate decision of an appolnted',~
<br />regional planning 8gency. But the state plan-":.
<br />ning agency, If It exists, tor whatever reasons,~
<br />has never entered the fray. The Post is correct'.~
<br />In seeking a disinterested decision but It shoulchi
<br />not be based solely on engineering.",,!
<br />
<br />.,", ,.
<br />'i', "
<br />
<br />WE NEED A duly qualified and Organized'),
<br />group of wise and good citizens representativ€f~:,
<br />of all factions and perhaps under the aegis of '''t
<br />'the state to arrive at a "best fit." I, for -one,"'::,
<br />consider the 1973 vote arrived at without dU~ ~'"
<br />consideration of the "brown cloud" no longer;!,;
<br />controlhng..,"...~,...
<br />'But isn't Foothills a lelthanded way at avoid'''",'
<br />Ing all the issues and defaulting in our respon~'''::::
<br />sibilities as citizens and government alike? ISf1.'t~~J"'.';
<br />It another example of throwing money at ou.r.~: ~
<br />problems by pushing decision into the future iti~"..~
<br />hope that it will go away? Why not lace up tlt:-:
<br />the whole mess once and lor all? What else.Js::-.~
<br />state government lor? . .:":,
<br />'-'.' '~.~
<br />
|