PUB00007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

water supplier for the entire metropolitan area. That has never been so. And the Poundstone Amendment passed in the mid 70's clearly brought that fact home. After Poundstone, the Denver Water Board stopped adding new distributors. That step was not vindictive; rather it was necessary because of City charter requirements. The Poundstone Amendment took away much of the Water Board's rationale for further expansion of its service area. However, even after Poundstone, Denver did not retreat from acting on water development problems. It took a leadership role in negotiating the Metropolitan Water Development Agreement, an agreement through which others in the Metropolitan area could participate in a joint venture format in future Denver water projects. That agreement, signed by the Denver Water Board and 47 suburban entities, indicated that Denver would not be the water supplier for Metropolitan area, but that we would cooperate and share some major water opportunities with others who would share financial and political risks. The foundation block of that agreement -- understood by all the signatories at the time -- was Two Forks Dam and Reservoir. TWO FOlUtS AND MOVING BEYOND THE PAST In November 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency vetoed Denver's application for a permit to construct the Two Forks Reservoir southwest of Denver. Although the legality and propriety of that veto is now being litigated by some of the providers, there is no question that the Two Forks veto permanently altered all assumptions and planning for the construction of large water development projects designed to serve the Metropolitan area. I do not intend to rehash the Two Forks saga here. I understand that a lot of communities had pinned their hopes on Two Forks. I know that many cities and districts, including Denver, spent a lot of money on the studies that preceded the EPA veto. But this is a new era for water project development and the environmental rules that apply. Not only has the rate of growth changed and the demographics that had led to the Two Forks application no longer valid, but, I believe, public values have also changed. The public, whose love of the great Colorado outdoors showed in overwhelming passage of Amendment 8, is voicing its concern for in-stream flow protection, river-based recreation, and water conservation. Most importantly, the general public will soon .tire of watching the Metropolitan partnership that had banded together to plan and finance Two Forks spend a lot of time bickering among themselves. We need to get beyond the bickering. LOOlaNG TO THE J! u'1'u4 For Denver's part, we hold out to the Metropolitan community and our Western Slope and Eastern Plains neighbors, a single commitment to working together in a new partnership. Here is what I expect of the current members of the Denver Water Board, as well of those I will appoint in the future: 18