As a metropolitan hub, Denver began as an anomaly, a center lacking transportation and water. The author claimed that Denver's economy "binds a vast area of the Great Plains to the Rocky Mountain west" (p. 94). Basing his political philosophy on informal networks, the author contended that "the policy process in America has much to do with informality--the committee system, alliances, log-rolling, and so on" (p. 95).
With this orientation, the author presented two principles regarding Denver's development. The first concerned Denver's focus on water; "because Denver's development and growth have always been dependent on the availability of water, the city's founders built a water development institution with extraordinary power and ability" (p. 98). The second described the coupling of Denver's growth with the region.
Denver Water Board, organized after the formation of the city and county of Denver in 1902, vied with two forces in assuring its water resources, other water developers on both sides of the Rockies and cities in the vicinity. Its role to build diversions, construct storage facilities and treatment plants caused friction on both sides of the Rockies and its role to service its customers, to deliver and lease water, brought it into competition with its urban neighbors. Despite suburban growth, the doctrine of prior appropriation "the fundamental tenet of Colorado water law, gives the Denver Water Board an advantage in the competition because its first members . . . had the foresight to secure the western slope water rights needed to serve what some hoped would become a 600-square mile supercity" (p. 100). Furthermore, the power given to the utility through the home rule amendment kept it immune to outside pressure. The Colorado Constitution reinforced its power by protecting it from the Colorado Public Utility Commission.
"The Bureau of Reclamation hoped to build a structure on the confluence of the North Fork and South Platte Rivers that would hold water for farmers and municipalities" (p. 104). The lack of interest of the residents of Denver for a suburban water project, environmental opposition, internecine struggles between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency killed the project, vetoing it in 1990.
Ellison, B. A. (2002). Denver Water Politics, Two Forks, and its implications for development on the Great Plains. In P. J. Longo and D. W. Yoskowitz (eds.), Water on the Great Plains: Issues and Policies. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.
With this orientation, the author presented two principles regarding Denver's development. The first concerned Denver's focus on water; "because Denver's development and growth have always been dependent on the availability of water, the city's founders built a water development institution with extraordinary power and ability" (p. 98). The second described the coupling of Denver's growth with the region.
Denver Water Board, organized after the formation of the city and county of Denver in 1902, vied with two forces in assuring its water resources, other water developers on both sides of the Rockies and cities in the vicinity. Its role to build diversions, construct storage facilities and treatment plants caused friction on both sides of the Rockies and its role to service its customers, to deliver and lease water, brought it into competition with its urban neighbors. Despite suburban growth, the doctrine of prior appropriation "the fundamental tenet of Colorado water law, gives the Denver Water Board an advantage in the competition because its first members . . . had the foresight to secure the western slope water rights needed to serve what some hoped would become a 600-square mile supercity" (p. 100). Furthermore, the power given to the utility through the home rule amendment kept it immune to outside pressure. The Colorado Constitution reinforced its power by protecting it from the Colorado Public Utility Commission.
"The Bureau of Reclamation hoped to build a structure on the confluence of the North Fork and South Platte Rivers that would hold water for farmers and municipalities" (p. 104). The lack of interest of the residents of Denver for a suburban water project, environmental opposition, internecine struggles between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency killed the project, vetoing it in 1990.
Ellison, B. A. (2002). Denver Water Politics, Two Forks, and its implications for development on the Great Plains. In P. J. Longo and D. W. Yoskowitz (eds.), Water on the Great Plains: Issues and Policies. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment