My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC01488
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
13000-13999
>
WSPC01488
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:12:11 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 2:47:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8040.950
Description
Section D General Studies - General Water Studies
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
6/21/1972
Author
Unknown
Title
Balanced Population Committee - Areas for Committee Exploration - SJR Number 11
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />UGJJ98 <br /> <br />The multiplier effect is not fixed from region to region. <br />In urban areas, the multiplier effect should be substan- <br />tially greater than in the San Juan Basin since a larger <br />portion of individual income would be spent in the urban <br />area. Urban communities are capable of retaining or cir- <br />culating income for a longer period of time. <br /> <br />Of course, the latter suggests that from an econom- <br />ic standpoint, the large urban areas are much more capable <br />of continued self-generation of economic activity than <br />rural areas. Furthermore, the expansion of mining ac- <br />tivity in a rural area may also result in even a greater <br />impact in the large commercial center in which the mining <br />firm is headquartered. Thus, growth may occur in Denver <br />as a result of the development of a new oil field in Wyom- <br />ing. <br /> <br />III. Adoption by Communities <br />of Population Growth Limits <br /> <br />The community of Boulder has been a leader in at- <br />tempting to establish more types of restrictions on popu- <br />lation growth. Perhaps the activities of the Boulder <br />Chapter of Zero Population Growth were instrumental in <br />focusing attention on this issue. The citizens of Boulder <br />voted on two options in regard to this matter: 1) a pe- <br />tition sponsored by ZPG which directed the city adminis- <br />tration to design restrictions which would stabilize <br />Boulder's population at 100,000; and 2) a resolution by <br />the City Council to adopt a growth policy based upon a <br />comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />The ZPG proposal was defeated and the city council <br />proposal approved. In essence, the voters of Boulder ap- <br />proved a resolution directing city officials to commence <br />an immediate analysis of the optimum population and growth <br />rate for the Boulder Valley. Pending completion of the <br />analysis and approval of programs developed to implement <br />its results, the city government working in cooperation <br />with county government is pledged to hold the rate of <br />growth in the Boulder Valley to a level substantially be- <br />low that experienced in the 1960's and is directed to in- <br />sure that the growth that takes place shall provide living <br />qualities in keeping with the policies found in the Boulder <br />Valley Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the council is pledged <br />to keep the growth rate below six percent per year, the <br />rate which occurred during the 1960's. <br /> <br />-15- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.