Laserfiche WebLink
<br />water supplier for the entire metropolitan area. That has never been <br />so. And the Poundstone Amendment passed in the mid 70's clearly <br />brought that fact home. <br /> <br />After Poundstone, the Denver Water Board stopped adding new <br />distributors. That step was not vindictive; rather it was necessary <br />because of City charter requirements. The Poundstone Amendment took <br />away much of the Water Board's rationale for further expansion of its <br />service area. <br /> <br />However, even after poundstone, Denver did not retreat from <br />acting on water development problems. It took a leadership role in <br />negotiating the Metropolitan Water Development Agreement, an agreement <br />through which others in the Metropolitan area could participate in a <br />joint venture format in future Denver water projects. That agreement, <br />signed by the Denver Water Board and 47 suburban entities, indicated <br />that Denver would not be the water supplier for Metropolitan area, but <br />that we would cooperate and share some major water opportunities with <br />others who would share financial and political risks. <br /> <br />The foundation block of that agreement -- understood by all the <br />signatories at the time -- was Two Forks Dam and Reservoir. <br /> <br />TWO FORKS AND MOVING BEYOND THE PAST <br /> <br />In November 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency vetoed <br />Denver's application for a permit to construct the Two Forks Reservoir <br />southwest of Denver. Although the legality and propriety of that veto <br />is now being litigated by some of the providers, there is no question <br />that the Two Forks veto permanently altered all assumptions and <br />planning for the construction of large water development projects <br />designed to serve the Metropolitan area. <br /> <br />I do not intend to rehash the Two Forks saga here. I understand <br />that a lot of communities had pinned their hopes on Two Forks. I know <br />that many cities and districts, including Denver, spent a lot of money <br />on the studies that preceded the EPA veto. But this is a new era for <br />water project development and the environmental rules that apply. <br /> <br />Not only has the rate of growth changed and the demographics that <br />had led to the Two Forks application no longer valid, but, I believe, <br />public values have also changed. The public, whose love of the great <br />Colorado outdoors showed in overwhelming passage of Amendment 8, is <br />voicing its concern for in-stream flow protection, river-based <br />recreation, and water conservation. Most importantly, the general <br />public will soon tire of watching the Metropolitan partnership that <br />had banded together to plan and finance Two Forks spend a lot of time <br />bickering among themselves. We need to get beyond the bickering. <br /> <br />LOOJaNG TO THE Fth'ud <br /> <br />For Denver's part, we hold out to the Metropolitan community and <br />our Western Slope and Eastern Plains neighbors, a single commitment to <br />working together in a new partnership. Here is what I expect of the <br />current members of the Denver Water Board, as well of those I will <br />appoint in the future: <br /> <br />18 <br />