|
<br />00631
<br />
<br />
<br />Dillon Reservoir, , , the main water storage facil-
<br />ity for Denver raw water supplies,
<br />
<br />available from a bond issue referendum approved
<br />by Denver voters in 1973, People in Marin County,
<br />California, by contrast, have turned down two
<br />bond issue referenda, and are suffering the conse.
<br />quences, Despite availability of Foothills construe.
<br />tion funds, we could have similar difficulties,
<br />1n addition to the direct economic benefits,
<br />the Foothills Plan includes producing electrical
<br />power using water from the Strontia Springs Dam,
<br />All the energy needed to operate the plant would
<br />be provided, and a small surplus of energy would
<br />be available, Power produced from hydroelectric
<br />facilities is much cheaper than that from other
<br />sources. Therefore, Denver area water users would
<br />have money by obtaining cheaper euergy for treat,
<br />ing water, and from a small amount of cheaper
<br />energy distributed to them through the Public
<br />Service Company system,
<br />People in the Denver area also have an investment
<br />of more than one billion dollars at replacement
<br />cost in ti ir own residential grass, flowers, shrubs
<br />and trees, In addition, they have a large investment
<br />in public parks and green areas paid for by their
<br />taxes, Without an adequate water supply, much of
<br />this investment would be lost, or it would have to
<br />be replaced by rocks or semi .arid and desert like
<br />plants which require very little or no water.
<br />
<br />Environmental Concerns
<br />
<br />Passage of the National Environmental Policy
<br />Act (NEPAl of 1969 is the root cause of the pres.
<br />ent problem, Without the requirements of that
<br />federal statute, the Foothills Treatment Plant would
<br />be operating now,
<br />When applied properly, NEP A protects the envi.
<br />ronment and provides for mitigation of impacts so
<br />that man and the environment can exist compatibly
<br />with one another, 1n the Foothills situation, an EIS
<br />is required because of an historic accident. Many
<br />years ago, the federal government reserved to itself
<br />large areas of the West, though the reservation was
<br />for reasons other than environmental protection, It
<br />so happens that the reserved area includes an area
<br />covering the western reaches of the South Platte
<br />River, Altogether, only 38,1 acres out of millions
<br />
<br />of reserved acres would be affected by the Foothills
<br />Plant and its related dam, reservoir and water con.
<br />veyance tunnel. Because this small amount of
<br />federal land is involved, however, an EIS is required
<br />under NEPA, This precedent could be followed on
<br />other local water projects throughout the State of
<br />Colorado,
<br />Bureaucratic delays in the State's Congressional
<br />delegation, federal agencies and environmental
<br />groups, despite clear evidence of need for Foothills,
<br />could have been curtailed by imaginative ideas.
<br />This badly needed project has been unnecessarily
<br />delayed for four years because of a technicality in
<br />the NEPA law, compounded by federal inertia,
<br />Some of the on.site concerns indude the effects
<br />on fish and wildlife from the dam and reservoir, 1n
<br />the past, Rocky Mountain sheep may have inhab-
<br />ited the area, but for a time none were seen. These
<br />sheep were transplanted into the area from else.
<br />where to reestablish the herd, It appears that
<br />impacts on the sheep would be temporary and
<br />could be largely mitigated, The sheep there now
<br />are not natural to the area, Recreational activity in
<br />the canyon would be limited if the dam and res.
<br />ervoir were built, but an expanding recreational
<br />area is being provided by the state and federal
<br />governments just downstream at the Chatfield Dam
<br />and Reservoir.
<br />A major argument of opponents of the Foothills
<br />Plant is that the additional water supply would
<br />stimulate growth in the metropolitan Denver area,
<br />and that would have detrimental effects on the en-
<br />vironment in and around the Denver area. This
<br />argument maintains, for example, that the air pol.
<br />lution problem is caused by the availability of
<br />water supply, Stopping the Foothills Plant, in their
<br />view, would benefit the environment in the Denver
<br />area because lack of water would prevent an in-
<br />crease in population and consequently put an end
<br />to a variety of air pollution and other adverse envi-
<br />ronmental effects,
<br />This supposed linkage is being examined in the
<br />EIS currently being done by the Bureau of Land
<br />Management. However, there is no evidence, here
<br />or elsewhere, that merely stopping development of
<br />a water supply stops growth, 1n the 1950's, in the
<br />face of a drought and water restrictions. the Denver
<br />area experienced one of its fastest growth periods,
<br />What has happened is that growth continues, and
<br />the pressure on the existing water supply increases.
<br />As a result each family's share of water goes down,
<br />Growth limitation actions should result from
<br />consideration of many related factors including all
<br />public services and the size and nature of a com.
<br />munity desired by the people who live there, Water
<br />supply should not be seized upon as a single
<br />simplistic device for limiting growth to avoid public
<br />scrutiny of the full range of decisions a community
<br />should make regarding its quality of life,
<br />1t is also argued that the Foothills and the pro-
<br />posed Two Forks projects are inextricably linked
<br />and that building Foothills automatically means
<br />
<br />July 1977 - COG notations - Page 5
<br />
|