WSP10753 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~)t /971 Foothills Ushered New I , I IAdversaries . Into \ , - ---- -- -Ify"BILLPARDUE Denver Post Staff Writer When the firsl pUlOS for Denver's Foot- I hills water project neared the drawing boardS., there was no National Environ- mental Policy Act and no Envi~nmental Protection Agency, That was in 1952, and the Denver Water Board' was planning for future metropoli- timgroWth, as it always- had done. But.:in the 26 years since then, the forces concerned with Denver growth lilivechanged"drnlOatically, and Foothills J1j)W, is considered ' a: key factor In deter- !niiling the nature of that-growth, primary opposition to early Water Board projects" came principally from --- Old Disputes EDITOR'S NOTE: Wbat Is the Footbills water project? How did it become mired in a heated. emotional debate tbat bas delayed tbe start of the project for almost five years? Those questions have sparked con~ troversy in recent molfths as the federal decision process on Foothills nr.ared its' conclusIon. The articles on tbis page fill in the background on Foothills and detail major arguments for 3ud against the project. , J Western Slope residents who fumed when tbe hoard brought water through the Rocky Mountains to accommodate the Front Range, An embattled Water Board now is en- countering opposition also at .home and from federal officials acting Under na- tional laws designed w protect the envi- ronment. THE CURRENT dispute's focus is a ---- $135 million,plus project on the South Platte River, ahout 25 miles southwest 01 downtown Denver. The controversy has pitted developers against environmentalists and placed two lederal agencies in conflict. I There isn't any federal money involved in Foothills' construction, Financing will come from $160 million in water,hond I sales approved by Denver voters five I - . -- - .- -- Il"j years ago, The federal government got involved in Foothills because of property rights-<>f- way, environmental concerns about the project's location in scenic Waterlon Canyon and jts effect on Denver growth patterns, The U,S, departments of Interior and Agriculture gave tbeir blessings W th~ Water Board three months ago and grant- ed rights-of-way to' federal land needed for the project Those agenci~s, after completing. envi. ronmental policy act' studies. said they were satisfied with Denver's plans. THE ISSUE now is before the U,S, Army Corps of Engineers. which is con, sidering a Water Board request for a fuedge,and'fill permit for Foothills' dam and reservoir at Strontia Springs. The EP A has opposed issuance 01 that permit. EPA regional chief Alan Merson said flatly last week that the dam and reservoir, as proposed by Denver, won't be huilL His EP A boss in Washington has the ultimatc power to block the project, undcr Section 404 01 the Clean Water Act. That rejection could throw the dispute into a lengthy court battle as inflation adds an estimated $800,000 a month to the project's cost. Foothills' prime purpose Is to guaran- tee a plentiful water supply for lawns and' gardens of the more than 1 million cus- tomers of the Water Board, according to I federal Invesligators who endorsed the . '';; project "I don't think anyone would deny that." Bill Miller of thc Denver Water Depart. ment said'last week. The City Charter promises an adequate water supply to Denver residents, and the boarq has conlracled with suburhan water districts to sell them whatever water is left over. F~oihills would supply new, treated wa- ter supplies for suburban dwellers, The board has rationed water taps lor new suburhan homcs until Foothills is built Outside-wafering restrictions also have been imposed, FOOTHILLS ALSO would provide a new baseload treatment plant for the ciy, Continued on poge 36. 00672