WSP02776 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- '" "..;. .,. -2- James Ogilvie, board manager, said the Board's program must be re- evaluated in order to continue furnishing an adequate water supply, and in any event such a program must include the controversial Eagle-piney water diversion project. Board President, Andrew Horan predicted that some day another bond election will be necessary. "Either that or a water rate increase", he said. Linden Blue, a member of the Denver city council which supported the issue, said "I am afraid the alternative to a bond issue is a drastic increase in water rates to the consumer if the Board cannot finance its needed improvements with bonds." Board officials also expressed concern over the time element. "Under the best conditions it takes upward of 20 years to get a project off the drawing board, under construction, and completed. Historical records tell us that a serious drouth could occur during the next 20 years," they said. Many environmentalists questioned the credibility of the Board. "The outcome of the election proves the voters were not fooled by the Water Board's presentation of the issue," said Ed Conners of the Colorado Open Space Council. Conners expressed hope that the outcome of the election would teach the Board a lesson and that from now on it would work "positive- ly" with the environmentalists on future plans. Dr. Robert Schilson, a research scientist with the Marathon oil Co., who wrote the Colorado Environmental Commission report on water resources, said he doubts Denver is on the verge of running out of water. "Denver, with its present storage capacity of 500,000 acre-feet, should be able to serve as many as 1.5 million people and a delay of a year or two in starting the program would not have a negative effect," he said. Basking in the sunlight of their victory, foes of the bond issue " called a press conference and offered to work with the Denver Water Board