Letters: Don’t dry the Lower Arkansas Valley by selling rights to water hungry developers
Water is a finite resource; growth is an unending drain
Re: “Lower Arkansas Valley: Clash over water,” April 6 news story
While visiting a local business the other day in Rocky Ford, I noticed the headline in the local paper about another attempted water grab in the Lower Arkansas Valley by Colorado Springs. I am a fifth-generation farmer, and we have agricultural interests in Kansas and Colorado, including in the valley.
For anyone unaware of the consequences of these water grabs, it would be timely to take a drive through Ordway, Las Animas, or other locations in the valley. There you can see the impact of the greed of cities and developers.
The reality is that the cities and the developers operate on the assumption that there is a God-given right to develop. Last Sunday, there were also articles about the massive growth around DIA and the need to widen Peña Boulevard to handle the higher volumes of traffic. Really? The fact is that we are dealing with finite resources, and there are limits to growth.
I am fully aware of the water savings technology that is in use in agriculture, and there are multiple ways in which that technology can and should be used in urban settings. But when we have unaccountable bureaucrats who have no incentive to conserve, the result is bound to be bad.
Until there are some honest conversations and leadership at all levels of government in Colorado about the limits to growth that are tied to finite water resources, the conversations about saving the Colorado River and other water sources are just for show.
Ben Palen, Denver
I’m pretty sure they teach the basics of supply and demand in business 101. But just in case the people in charge of these decisions skipped that class, let’s review. There’s no question the Front Range needs water to continue to develop. That’s the demand side.
The problem is the search for new water sources in areas that don’t have water to spare. We don’t need to duplicate the actions of Los Angeles that turned the Owens Valley into a desert, with the same outcome for the Arkansas River Valley in Colorado. How about a different approach? Look to obtain new sources of water from areas that have a surplus of water.
The Missouri River and Mississippi River basins flood with regularity almost every year. This would be the supply side of the equation. Why not run a pipeline to the Front Range? It seems feasible that they could run a pipeline that would parallel existing oil pipelines. They could also utilize solar, wind and backup generators to run the pumps.
The immediate argument is that we can’t; it’s too expensive. Yes, it is expensive, but can’t never got anything done. Los Angeles proved that water runs uphill to money, and the money is there. It’s there in the form of insurance settlements to pay for all the damage the flooding does every year to that region. It would require reallocating how the money gets spent. It would require a functioning federal government. It would require political willpower. The issue isn’t the short supply of water; it’s the short supply of imagination.
Mike L. Keith, Gunnison
Commuter rail is Front Range issue to solve
Re: “Still waiting: Endless barriers prevent start of construction on train from Pueblo to Fort Collins,” April 6 commentary
Please name the fast-growing cities in the United States that do not have traffic problems. They are everywhere.
Predictability in transit times is important for economic efficiency. Given the unpredictable nature of metropolitan road traffic, there is a significant opportunity to improve economic efficiency through improved transit.
NIMBYs, however, don’t want to share the burden. Nor do environmentalists. Further, there is no consensus on the ideal solution. Is it light rail, subway, more highway lanes, blimps or a partridge in a pear tree?
Most importantly, there is no money — not local, not federal. The federal government’s debt level must be reduced. It cannot borrow funds to solve traffic frustration.
What is the solution? Colorado residents must pay for the improvements in transit. If Coloradans are frustrated by the lack of a solution, I suggest they buy a mirror.
Every people has the government it deserves.
Michael Canon, Denver
I wholeheartedly agree with the content of Sofia Joucovsky’s commentary. Sadly, our country now lags behind both European and Asian countries in passenger rail infrastructure. Dispersed population centers like those that exist on the Front Range could easily upgrade the system in a simple, linear way.
Peter Ewing, Pueblo
Looking for better ways to get to the airport
Re: “For $15 million, look at all Peña Blvd alternatives,” April 6 editorial
I hope the Peak Consulting Study finds a way to understand who’s using the road and why, which will probably include understanding where the person is traveling to and from. I live near 13th Avenue and Holly Street. The A Line is not close. I’d have to drive there or hire a driver, then still pay the $10 ticket and wait for the train.
I like the idea that drivers could go to E-470, but if most people are coming from the west of the airport, why would they go east? No matter how much traffic I’ve seen on Google Maps when I’m leaving the airport, it has not once told me to take E-470.
The article mentioned the expansion of lanes by the airport, which has always puzzled me. I’ve only been here for six years, so maybe before that, the last mile before the airport had bad traffic? All of that roadwork planning missed the mark on how fast the area was growing residentially. It feels like everyone is scratching their head as to why there are more people on the road.
I lived for years in New York City, and I loved its public transportation options, but that’s not feasible for Denver at this point. We need to think about more futuristic options, like self-driving vehicles with a dedicated lane, because asking me to take a train, then a bus, then walk doesn’t seem like the future.
Lauren Jenkins, Denver
Denver City Council doesn’t need to spend $15 million on a study; rather, look at what the Washington D.C. metro area did in the 1980s. As the area around the Dulles International Airport grew, the Dulles Airport Access Highway became clogged not as much with airport traffic as with travelers going to homes, shops, and restaurants between the Beltway (Interstate 495) and the airport. Does this sound familiar? It should, because that is what is happening between Interstate 70 and DIA. This is due to all of the development around the airport. I would venture to say much of the traffic on Peña Boulevard never even goes to the airport.
The solution for Dulles and the surrounding area was simple: Build local access roads to serve travelers who did not have business at the airport and restrict the Airport Access Highway to airport business traffic only. Having traveled in and out of the area since the late ’70s, I can tell you that this has worked and continues to work for the airport and surrounding area.
There seems to be plenty of land around Peña Boulevard. Building traffic lanes for local businesses and housing in the area and keeping non-airport off of Peña makes sense.
Calvin T. Switzer II, Castle Rock
I offer a far less expensive and disruptive alternative not mentioned in the article. Recently, I read a second cell phone lot was being considered. For the new cell phone lot, why not have a continuous loop of shuttle buses?
Departing passengers could be dropped off at the lot, transported to the terminal, and the same bus could bring arriving passengers back to the lot to be picked up. This would not only reduce traffic on Peña Boulevard but also reduce traffic congestion at the airport. RTD could run the service, charge a fee of maybe $2.00 per trip and maybe show a profit.
Attention City Council: I offer this alternative and will accept far less than $15 million.
Steve Nash, Centennial
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
