PUB00029 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . I. Introduction . From the perspective of 1997, it seems almost inevitable that EP A in the late 1980s would veto the proposed Two Forks dam and reservoir project. The mammoth project- 1.1 million acre-feet in storage-would have inundated dozens of relatively pristine miles of trout stream in a pastoral valley setting, at a cost of about half a billion dollars. No matter that the dam site, a natural for a reservoir, had been on Denver's drawing board for almost a century, or that 44 Metro Denver communities and four counties cooperated to design this locally funded project, or even that all state and federal agencies, including the regional EP A office, had agreed to the project. Despite all this, Two Forks was vetoed, and its veto helped signal that the values of a nation and region had changed, that water was viewed by many as more valuable in the stream than stored or moved to other locations, and that the high tide of massive on-stream storage projects had receded, leaving other alternatives as the people's choice. . . When it became clear in 1989 that the Two Forks project would receive an EP A veto, Denver Water Commissioners issued a set of policy positions to address the anticipated changed circumstances. Two years later, after the EP A veto became final, the Board enunciated a "new path" policy which said that: . ... Denver's Water Board may no longer serve a central planning role for water supply under current institutional and political constraints. Having assessed Denver assets and obligations in light of current events, the Water Board is preparing for a different role in metropolitan water supply and development. . Denver Water's Different Role . Historically, the suburban areas growing up around Denver chose annexation into the city, thus obtaining the right to water supplied by Denver. Many other suburban areas not seeking Denver annexation were offered Denver water supply by contract. As late as 1960, virtually all water planning for the Denver metro area centered on the Denver Water Board. . But a series of circumstances, culminating in the veto of Two Forks, served to change this historical pattern. Most significant was the 1974 passage of the Poundstone Amendment to the state constitution, which effectively precluded Denver from annexing further land to expand its boundaries. . Furthermore, as the best water storage sites were claimed and used, fewer locations were available for water storage development. In addition, over time, the public came to place increased value on preserving streamflows and avoiding dams. The result was a series of regulatory requirements which severely limited water storage development, escalating both costs and risks for such development. With the veto of Two Forks, it became clear . I