Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.~ <br /> <br />-. <br /> <br />Fax <br /> <br />Jul 31 08:25 <br /> <br /> <br />"Voice of the Western Slope, since 1953" <br />A coalition of counties. communities, businesses & individuals <br />970/242.3264 * FAX 970 1245-8300 <br />P.O. BOil 550 <br />Grand Junction. Colorado 81502.()550 <br /> <br />July 21, 1995 <br /> <br />Mr. Allen D. Miller <br />P.O. Box 567 <br />Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133 <br /> <br />Dear Dave: <br /> <br />Thanks for your follow-up note. I did not miss your point; <br />We understand exactly what you are proposing. <br /> <br />You write that "the Kansas suit is Colorado's problem" and <br />we disagree. The fact that you live on "the dry slope" was your <br />decision. But you now suggest that Colorado's new obligation to <br />reduce its use o! Kansas water makes Gunnison River diversions <br />imperative, because there isn't any better Front Range supply. <br />The latter point is debatable (Front Range residents opposed Two <br />Forks, we didn't). I suggest that you continue to ignore our <br />point, so here's one more try... <br /> <br />The tact that FRONT RANGE cities have grown and consumed <br />water beyond the capability of the land, dried up farm lands, and <br />violated the compact with Kansas is - how to say it politely - <br />NOT WESTERN COLORADO'S PROBLEM. To seek Western Slope water to <br />solve it is simply to spread the misery, and create the same <br />long-term problem over here. You must know we're not going to <br />let that happen if we can stop it; we seek to learn from the <br />mistakes made on the Front Range, not repeat them. <br /> <br /> <br />E. Walcher, <br />resident <br />