Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. .. <br /> <br />-" <br /> <br />9ragram in stride. ?robably most of them <br />would ?refer Such a program over rooth~lls, <br />Wh1Ch means a 5135,000,000 expend~ture and <br />loss of :;aterton Canyon as a favorite rec- <br />reation 9rea, but the Water 90ard ha~ never <br />informed the public that this option exists. <br />Denver 1105 1:1 the ~er.li-ar1d j'iest and there <br />is no reason why we should not profess mini- <br />mal water con3ervation as part of the 11fe _ <br />style of which we are proud. If the Denver <br />public is ready for minimal conservation on <br />a permanent basis, as I th1~k 1t is, then the <br />Denver Water Board should announce such a <br />prograr.l forth~ith, (regardless of the outcome <br />of the Foothills controversy.) <br />Ten years from now the ?eople of Denver <br />will have an entirely new p8Ispective on <br />'....ater. ~leters will huve been installed and <br />plumb~ng co~e changes will have been exper- <br />ienced in newer homes. He .....i 11 have. a much <br />clearer picture of recycling techniques and <br />acceptab~l~ty and the neecs far west slo?e <br />water for po~ulatian growth and energy de- <br />velopments in the mountains w~ll be ~uch more <br />shurply def~ned. It is pre~atu=e, theref~re, <br />to specify a conservation program now for <br />the 1990s. <br />Those who claim to oe supporters of <br />conservation at the present ti~e should take <br />pencil to paper and de'Jelop their own pro- <br />posals, estimate the peak and average day <br />savings, and then Join in pressuring the <br />Water 90ard to catch up wlth publlC opinion. <br />For their aNn amusement I they might also <br />estimate t~e nUQber of years t~at a minima: <br />program tlQuld permit S135,000,000 projects <br />to be defer=ed. I'll bet they'd d~scover <br />that my proJections are conservat~ve! <br /> <br />* '* * * * <br /> <br />- 4 - <br /> <br />l1.t"\i"nt"'\ <br />