Dave,

Again I agree with all you said (below) -- except #2.  Your "representatives"
are beholden to developers because the developers put your politicians where
they are.  Therefore, your politicians, being willing and cooperative parties to
that "buying of a politician", have no intention of being "good stewards of our
local treasure."  They're only interested in what they can get for *themselves*
and for their buddies the developers -- no one else.

Remove those politicians from office, and elect honest men of integrity, i.e.,
men who can't be "bought", and you will have solved most of your problems in El
Paso County.

Jan

----------
At 11:18 PM 10/28/02 , you wrote:
>I, too, would like to see our council and commisioners
>do the right thing for our town.  Toward that end, we
>need to...
>
>1. Speak out until citizens feel it's okay to be
>anti-growth (they've been shamed so long, we have to
>overcome that).
>
>2. Make sure these representatives hear from more and
>more of us -- giving THEM permission to be good
>stewards of our local treasure.  If they hang out with
>developers and only hear from developers, they come to
>believe the whole town would rather make a buck than
>maintain the town's charm and quality of life.
>
>3. Ultimately run for office ourselves (not something
>I'm crazy about doing, but if we just sit on the
>sidelines complaining, we're not really part of the
>solution).
>
>Thanks for your comments.
>
>Dave
>
>--- Jan <wiwleb@...> wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> While I agree with everything you said below,
>> nothing is going to change in El
>> Paso County until you get rid of your current bunch
>> of County Commissioners and
>> members of your City Council.  As far as I can tell,
>> every one of them appears
>> to be venally corrupt to their very cores.  Remove
>> them from office and your
>> problems (growth, water, etc) will be 99% solved.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> At 09:47 PM 10/27/02 , you wrote:
>> >
>> > “Zero growth won’t solve water shortage” (Gazette
>> 10/27/02) by David
>> > Bamberger was misleading if not insulting.  It
>> strikes me as another attempt
>> > by pro-growth interests to shame anyone who dares
>> stand up against this
>> > town’s “growth cures all” mentality.  I admit I’m
>> anti-growth.  I don’t
>> > believe we’re improving our town by adding 100,000
>> residents every decade.
>> > I’m not foolish enough to believe curtailing
>> growth would solve our water
>> > shortage. But I do question the wisdom of inviting
>> more people in to use a
>> > resource that cannot sustain the current
>> population.
>> >
>> > Bamberger wants us to feel guilty about opposing
>> growth when we who live here
>> > are responsible for “half the (population) gain.”
>> He conveniently arrives at
>> > that percentage by failing to subtract emigration
>> of natives from the birth
>> > figures, instead subtracting that from the
>> immigration figures.  This
>> > artificially inflates birth rate’s -- and deflates
>> immigration’s --
>> > contribution to our growth.  I frequently see this
>> type of data manipulation
>> > by pro-growth propagandists.  Whether intentional
>> or just sloppy, it’s
>> > misleading.  Of course it shouldn’t even matter.
>> If growth in El Paso County
>> > isn’t smart, it isn’t smart, regardless of the
>> source.  We can’t legislate
>> > birth rate, but we might be able to stop
>> subsidizing growth.
>> >
>> > Shouldn’t we wonder if nature is trying to tell us
>> something?  Perhaps this
>> > town is about as big as it should be. Today it’s
>> water shortage.  The next
>> > sign we get will be poor air quality.  Be assured
>> it will get worse if we
>> > continue on our present course.
>> >
>> > Sure, we still have to conserve water; limiting
>> growth won’t change that.
>> > But how foolish is it to knowingly worsen the
>> problem?  “More people” does
>> > not equal “better town.”  Mr. Bamberger and others
>> like him, who have a
>> > financial interest in the growth of this town,
>> apparently prefer we use up
>> > all our water rather than rein in non-sustainable,
>> unbridled growth.  Growth
>> > will not solve ANY of the problems we face.  It
>> will only make them worse.
>> >
>> > Dave Gardner
>> > <mailto:dave@...>
>> >
>> > 760 Wycliffe Drive
>> > Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA
>> >
>> > +1 719-576-5565
>> > +1 719-576-5562 (fax)

I, too, would like to see our council and commisioners
do the right thing for our town.  Toward that end, we
need to...

1. Speak out until citizens feel it's okay to be
anti-growth (they've been shamed so long, we have to
overcome that).

2. Make sure these representatives hear from more and
more of us -- giving THEM permission to be good
stewards of our local treasure.  If they hang out with
developers and only hear from developers, they come to
believe the whole town would rather make a buck than
maintain the town's charm and quality of life.

3. Ultimately run for office ourselves (not something
I'm crazy about doing, but if we just sit on the
sidelines complaining, we're not really part of the
solution).

Thanks for your comments.

Dave

--- Jan <wiwleb@...> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> While I agree with everything you said below,
> nothing is going to change in El
> Paso County until you get rid of your current bunch
> of County Commissioners and
> members of your City Council.  As far as I can tell,
> every one of them appears
> to be venally corrupt to their very cores.  Remove
> them from office and your
> problems (growth, water, etc) will be 99% solved.
>
> Jan
>
> ----------
>
> At 09:47 PM 10/27/02 , you wrote:
> >
> > “Zero growth won’t solve water shortage” (Gazette
> 10/27/02) by David
> > Bamberger was misleading if not insulting.  It
> strikes me as another attempt
> > by pro-growth interests to shame anyone who dares
> stand up against this
> > town’s “growth cures all” mentality.  I admit I’m
> anti-growth.  I don’t
> > believe we’re improving our town by adding 100,000
> residents every decade.
> > I’m not foolish enough to believe curtailing
> growth would solve our water
> > shortage. But I do question the wisdom of inviting
> more people in to use a
> > resource that cannot sustain the current
> population.
> >
> > Bamberger wants us to feel guilty about opposing
> growth when we who live here
> > are responsible for “half the (population) gain.”
> He conveniently arrives at
> > that percentage by failing to subtract emigration
> of natives from the birth
> > figures, instead subtracting that from the
> immigration figures.  This
> > artificially inflates birth rate’s -- and deflates
> immigration’s --
> > contribution to our growth.  I frequently see this
> type of data manipulation
> > by pro-growth propagandists.  Whether intentional
> or just sloppy, it’s
> > misleading.  Of course it shouldn’t even matter.
> If growth in El Paso County
> > isn’t smart, it isn’t smart, regardless of the
> source.  We can’t legislate
> > birth rate, but we might be able to stop
> subsidizing growth.
> >
> > Shouldn’t we wonder if nature is trying to tell us
> something?  Perhaps this
> > town is about as big as it should be. Today it’s
> water shortage.  The next
> > sign we get will be poor air quality.  Be assured
> it will get worse if we
> > continue on our present course.
> >
> > Sure, we still have to conserve water; limiting
> growth won’t change that.
> > But how foolish is it to knowingly worsen the
> problem?  “More people” does
> > not equal “better town.”  Mr. Bamberger and others
> like him, who have a
> > financial interest in the growth of this town,
> apparently prefer we use up
> > all our water rather than rein in non-sustainable,
> unbridled growth.  Growth
> > will not solve ANY of the problems we face.  It
> will only make them worse.
> >
> > Dave Gardner
> > <mailto:dave@...>
> >
> > 760 Wycliffe Drive
> > Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA
> >
> > +1 719-576-5565
> > +1 719-576-5562 (fax)
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

“Zero growth won’t solve water shortage” (Gazette 10/27/02) by David Bamberger was misleading if not insulting.  It strikes me as another attempt by pro-growth interests to shame anyone who dares stand up against this town’s “growth cures all” mentality.  I admit I’m anti-growth.  I don’t believe we’re improving our town by adding 100,000 residents every decade.  I’m not foolish enough to believe curtailing growth would solve our water shortage. But I do question the wisdom of inviting more people in to use a resource that cannot sustain the current population.

Bamberger wants us to feel guilty about opposing growth when we who live here are responsible for “half the (population) gain.”  He conveniently arrives at that percentage by failing to subtract emigration of natives from the birth figures, instead subtracting that from the immigration figures.  This artificially inflates birth rate’s -- and deflates immigration’s -- contribution to our growth.  I frequently see this type of data manipulation by pro-growth propagandists.  Whether intentional or just sloppy, it’s misleading.  Of course it shouldn’t even matter.  If growth in El Paso County isn’t smart, it isn’t smart, regardless of the source.  We can’t legislate birth rate, but we might be able to stop subsidizing growth.

Shouldn’t we wonder if nature is trying to tell us something?  Perhaps this town is about as big as it should be. Today it’s water shortage.  The next sign we get will be poor air quality.  Be assured it will get worse if we continue on our present course.

Sure, we still have to conserve water; limiting growth won’t change that.  But how foolish is it to knowingly worsen the problem?  “More people” does not equal “better town.”  Mr. Bamberger and others like him, who have a financial interest in the growth of this town, apparently prefer we use up all our water rather than rein in non-sustainable, unbridled growth.  Growth will not solve ANY of the problems we face.  It will only make them worse.

Dave Gardner
<mailto:dave@...>

760 Wycliffe Drive
Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA

+1 719-576-5565
+1 719-576-5562 (fax)

X-Apparently-To: dave@... via web103.bizmail.yahoo.com; 08 Oct 2002 13:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Track: 1: 100
From: "Duncan Bremer" <duncanbremer@...>
To: <dave@...>
Subject: FW: Conservatism an Excuse to Welcome Growth?
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:02:49 -0600
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal


Mr. Gardner:
See my responses below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Gardner <dave@...>
To: Duncan Bremer <DuncanBremer@...>
CC: No More Growth <nomoregrowth@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon Oct 07 18:53:54 2002
Subject: Conservatism an Excuse to Welcome Growth?

Mr. Bremer,

>I am pleased and impressed to get your thoughtful, courteous and encouraging
reply.  I hope you can answer a couple of questions.  I scanned the entire
water report a few weeks ago when first released and read much of it.  I
intend to be as well-informed on this issue as possible.

1. Just because the 100 year rule was applied in approving developments in
Monument, Palmer Lake, and parts of the Donala Water District, does that
really impact the RATE at which they use the water?<

The water providers are allowed under the State rule to pull water out at
the rate of 1/100th of the total per year. My assumption is that they do so.
The County does not regulate the rate at which the well owners pump. All the
wells are metered to make sure they do not exceed the amount permitted by
their well permit.

>2. The water report seems to recommend the county adopt the 100-year rule.
What is your opinion about this and what difference will it make if we stick
to 300?<

I have consistently favored keeping the 300 year rule. The Report indicates
that the County keeping the 300 year rule with the municipalities (and the
rest of the Denver Basin) staying on 100 year rule makes a small difference
only. The report does not look at moving the entire Denver Basin to a 300
year rule. There are some possible reasons for the County to move to the 100
year rule, but they are not convincing to me. First is fairness. Somehow it
is viewed as unfair that in the unincorporated area developers must show
they have legal right to use 300 years worth of water, whereas in
incorporated areas they only have to show 100 years. The only district that
I have heard complain about this unfairness is Donala. That is because in
order for Donala to provide water to more territory, and thereby make the
district more cost-efficient, it must acquire much more water than a
district like Tri-View that operates in Monument. Donala is having
difficulty acquiring any additional water. Another issue is the reported
Western Slope attitude about how we aught to fully develop the Denver Basin
before asking them to part with one drop of "their" water, which actually
belongs to the people of the State of Colorado. I do not believe that the
100-300 year rule adds anything to that controversy or changes anything. The
300 year rule only requires that the water for 300 years be dedicated to a
development before it is platted. It does not regulate the rate of use of
that water.
There may be a better rule than the 300 year rule. In its application, it
may mean that El Paso County folks do not ever get to use the water they
have a legal right to use, because they are delayed from developing rapidly
and using their water fast before it goes down to Douglas County. But I do
not believe putting more development on the limited resource just to use it
before it is gone makes a good policy.


>3. My sense is that the 300-year rule is theoretical and that areas that
have met that county rule are still expected (according to the recent study)
to have their wells run dry within the next century or so.  Is that true?
If so, the rule would seem to have little benefit to us.  Certainly there
are developments recently approved which sell lots using shallow domestic
wells.  The water report implies these wells will not be viable over the
long haul.  Please explain.<

The 300 rule is indeed somewhat theoretical, in that we do not have enough
engineering to really predict the cost of future pumping, given all the
variables. However, the Water report simulations give us the first
engineering basis for predicting the effects of pumping cumulatively on the
Denver Basin aquifers over time. The reality is that the faster we pump, the
faster the water pressure will decrease and more costly it will be to
extract water sooner. No one knows when a particular well will be
uneconomical to pump (commercial wells) or simply not provide enough water
(single family wells). A lot depends upon the specifics of the well use.
However, we do know that the date will be later under the 300 year rule than
under the 100 year rule. The Report does a disservice, in my opinion, in one
area. It seems to say that under the 300 year rule there will need to be
more wells and therefore, in some areas the rate of depletion will be
faster. That is counter-intuitive, as Bruce said at the meeting. However, I
believe it is also a result of a misinterpretation of the rule. The rule
does not affect the rate of pumping. It only affects the rate of demand,
that is, land development. For any given location, the primary land
development criteria are the small area plan and related zoning. For
developments on lots 2.5 acres or greater, there is plenty of water in the
Dawson in most cases to easily meet the 300 year rule and the economics are
such that developers always choose to use individual wells. These wells
should last for the foreseeable future, which may be 100- 500 years (without
taking into consideration the long term effects of cumulative pumping
elsewhere in the DB).  I believe the simulations show plenty of water for
these wells for the long haul even with the cumulative effects of DB
pumping. Check that out, though.
A bigger question is the commercial well pumping in the deeper aquifers and
its effect on domestic wells in those aquifers, which mostly lie on the edge
of the DB. The study focuses on the effects of the Rule on these water
providers.
There may well be a better rule. I do not know what it is.

>You tell us there is plenty of water and we don't need to limit growth.  And
you probably wonder why some of us are skeptical.  Tommy Thompson, in
response to the Anthrax attacks a year ago, kept saying, "There is nothing
to worry about.  We can respond," when he needed to be saying, "We are not
as prepared as we ought to be and we are working hard to get there."
Colorado Springs Utilities' Phil Tollefson tells us we'll be in great shape
in six years, yet it appears to me he is banking on an agreement with Pueblo
that has yet to be ironed out.  Assuming Pueblo is foolish enough to let us
play with their river flow, how long before exponential population growth
negates that increased flow to the Springs?  Intelligent voters are not
crazy about politicians practicing spin in order to avoid "dangerous panic."
It is not a politician's prerogative to censor public information; it is
arrogant to think they have all the facts; we have none, and they should
choose carefully what information is widely released.  I've worked in P.R.
for years; I know how it works, and I think it's one thing for a
profit-seeking corporation to play spin doctor/quite another for our public
servants.  Decades ago the citizens of Southern California were told all the
water they would ever need had been arranged for, yet more than once they
ran up against the limits of those water sources and found themselves paying
more and more in desperate attempts to keep the water coming.  I can promise
you we are going down that path; those who disagree are deluding themselves.
I'll go on the record about this, and you and I can compare notes in just 20
or 30 years.<

I do not think we have any disagreement here. I am glad you are skeptical. I
am glad people like you are willing to look into the facts and ask the
questions. That is the strength of democracy, not spinning, not emotional
responses, but good citizens asking for truth and being willing to go after
it. I misspoke in the quote in the paper. I should have said the Count
already limits growth based on water, and I believe we should. We could
require all new development to be on renewable resources. That is what the
"sustainability" movement is all about. I disagree with that approach. It
largely ignores the benefits of human intellect and creativity. It assumes a
static state of economy, ecology, technology and human resource.
On the other hand, we should not ignore the fact that the water resource of
the DB is finite. The 300 year rule is designed to accommodate limited
growth based on water being available for a long, but finite time.  The
assumption is that as the water resource reaches its limit, there will be
means available to deal with the situation. In the mean time, water planners
should be looking and planning for those means. The same can be said of the
100 year rule. But given all the uncertainties, the 100 year rule may
actually not give enough time to get done what needs to be done before
property values plummet in a water crisis.

For instance, the City of CS is finally giving some consideration to using
its Denver Basin water. Perhaps the next step will be a cooperative use
agreement with other DB users as is developing in the Denver Metro Area,
whereby in wet years users use surface water. In dry years, they use DB
water. Thereby they maximize both and avoid consequences of drought and
postpone depletion.
I have been working with others to get a more comprehensive approach to
Colorado's water. The old adage is "Whisky's fur drinkin', water's fur
fightin."  We need to realize that while we fight, our ability to use our
water for Colorado citizens and Colorado's future is going away. If we get
together we just might improve on that likely scenario.


>Thanks for being so involved.  Just because your lunch and golf buddies sell
lots and build houses, don't assume all your constituents are pro-growth.<

Dave Gardner

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 18:53:54 -0600
To: Duncan Bremer <DuncanBremer@...>
From: Dave Gardner <dave@...>
Subject: Conservatism an Excuse to Welcome Growth?
Cc: No More Growth <nomoregrowth@yahoogroups.com>
Bcc: sharon Montville <shmontville@...>

Mr. Bremer,

I am pleased and impressed to get your thoughtful, courteous and encouraging reply.  I hope you can answer a couple of questions.  I scanned the entire water report a few weeks ago when first released and read much of it.  I intend to be as well-informed on this issue as possible.

1. Just because the 100 year rule was applied in approving developments in Monument, Palmer Lake, and parts of the Donala Water District, does that really impact the RATE at which they use the water?

2. The water report seems to recommend the county adopt the 100-year rule.  What is your opinion about this and what difference will it make if we stick to 300?

3. My sense is that the 300-year rule is theoretical and that areas that have met that county rule are still expected (according to the recent study) to have their wells run dry within the next century or so.  Is that true?  If so, the rule would seem to have little benefit to us.  Certainly there are developments recently approved which sell lots using shallow domestic wells.  The water report implies these wells will not be viable over the long haul.  Please explain.

You tell us there is plenty of water and we don't need to limit growth.  And you probably wonder why some of us are skeptical.  Tommy Thompson, in response to the Anthrax attacks a year ago, kept saying, "There is nothing to worry about.  We can respond," when he needed to be saying, "We are not as prepared as we ought to be and we are working hard to get there."  Colorado Springs Utilities' Phil Tollefson tells us we'll be in great shape in six years, yet it appears to me he is banking on an agreement with Pueblo that has yet to be ironed out.  Assuming Pueblo is foolish enough to let us play with their river flow, how long before exponential population growth negates that increased flow to the Springs?  Intelligent voters are not crazy about politicians practicing spin in order to avoid "dangerous panic."  It is not a politician's prerogative to censor public information; it is arrogant to think they have all the facts; we have none, and they should choose carefully what information is widely released.  I've worked in P.R. for years; I know how it works, and I think it's one thing for a profit-seeking corporation to play spin doctor/quite another for our public servants.  Decades ago the citizens of Southern California were told all the water they would ever need had been arranged for, yet more than once they ran up against the limits of those water sources and found themselves paying more and more in desperate attempts to keep the water coming.  I can promise you we are going down that path; those who disagree are deluding themselves.  I'll go on the record about this, and you and I can compare notes in just 20 or 30 years.

Thanks for being so involved.  Just because your lunch and golf buddies sell lots and build houses, don't assume all your constituents are pro-growth.

Dave Gardner

At 04:06 PM 10/7/02 -0600, Duncan Bremer wrote:

Thanks for your comments. I might point out that I was instrumental in getting the County Water Authority going and have been involved in water issues for nearly a decade. I have been advocating for more public information and education on the subject for quite a while. We are now only seeing the begining of the information and education that must take place. I am also Vice President of the Colorado Water Partnership, which is addressing this issue at the State level, educating lawmakers and the States leadership and public on water issues. Education and good information is the first step. I agree that solutions will only come by cooperative efforts and so have advocated for the formation of a well-owner organization, which is now taking place and I hope will find a seat on the Water Authority Board, although state law does not permit them to have a vote.
 
The point is that the information must first be developed and then disseminated and digetsted. The news media is addicted to controversy and so will protray the situation a much more urgent than it is. Many people are only now coming to grips with the fact that we live on a non-renewable water resource. That should not cause panic, but adjustment in thinking. There is plenty of water for the foreseeable future. The Commissioners have been dealing with this issue very conservatively since 1986 when the Board adopted the 300 year rule. It requires the subdivision show it has legal right to Denver Basin water sufficient for the subdivision's first 300 years. That is the most conservative rule in the State. It is 3 times more conservative than the State's 100 year rule. I have been defending that rule since before I started to run for this position. It does limit development. It also forced developments to seek renewable water or reduce total development and set aside open space. For instance, the Falcon area, which is the fastest growing area in unincorporated El Paso County, has been forced to grow on renewable water obtained from the Upper Black Squirrel. Otherwise they would not have been permitted to develop at such density. Kings Deer, on the other hand, developed on shallow wells in the Dawson, but engineering shows they have about 750 years worth of water at that density.
 
One other factor we have seen is that the Town of Monument and Palmer Lake have not been as restrictive. They still apply the 100 year rule. They are pumping water at a higher rate and therefore pumping down their wells, and perhaps having an influence on other wells. Donala (Gleneagle) has also been pumping down at the higher rate. It was permitted before the 300 year rule was instituted.
 
My point is that good planning already includes good planning for water. There is a lot of water. However, if you and others pump your wells, they will eventually have reduced yields and they will eventually require replacement. Mine, too. Nothing to panic about. Just reality. Just an opportunity to get good information and put it to work in our planning. Lets not reduce our property values by making people think we are in some dire straights. We are not. In all this drought, do you know how many calls I have gotten from people whose wells have gone dry, or even have dropped precipitously? None. Zero. We are actually doing very well.
Do not misunderstand. I am not saying there is nothing to worry about. I am saying that we can address the issues sensibly, over time and cooperatively. I am not saying there should be no growth limits based on water. I am saying that we already have them in place, thanks to some Board action about 15 years ago. I am not saying they are perfect. I am saying they can be improved. I am saying that we do not need to have some drastic limit on growth in the unincorporated County. We do need to watch what other jurisdictions and water districts do. We do need to band together to watch and debate and protect our interests. We do not have a right to unlimited water. We have only a limited source.
 
I do disagree with one lady who tried to tell me that government should prevent someone else from putting a well on their property because their pumping water on their property might reduce the amount of water she is able to pump on hers. You may disagree with me. I do not feel it is right for the government to prohibit your neighbor from doing on his property what you are permitted to do. We are in this together. Lets behave like adults and neighbors and see what the issues are and address them together intelligently.
 
Again, thanks for your interest. It is gratifying to finally have some of the public really get interested. Please follow up by reading the report in more detail. It is full of useful information. We need your informed participation.

-----Original Message-----

From: Dave Gardner [mailto:dave@...]

Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:00 PM

To: Duncan Bremer

Cc: No More Growth; Chuck Brown; Ed Jones; Tom Huffman; Jeri Howells

Subject: conservatism

Mr. Bremer,

Just read your quote in today's Gazette about anti-growth sentiment being an anomaly because conservatism usually means less government.  I don't take exception to that.  But you must know there ARE some things people can only accomplish by working as a group.  Protecting the integrity of our water supply is one.  So please do NOT use conservatism as an excuse for not stepping up to tackle a tough problem that we will one day WISH we had dealt with before it was too late.  I, for one, don't think we should just invite all comers to the county, knowing full-well we will have to go to extreme lengths to meet the water needs of this community.  This raises serious questions about how to deal with property rights vs. greater common good, and the civic leader(s) with vision and the long-term health of our community will have the fortitude to step up and do what's right.  I'm typically a conservative and favor less government, but not on the issues of growth and water.  I think we're nuts to sell the soul of El Paso County in the interest of a few jobs and a few more dollars.  Am I one of a small minority on this issue?  We're going to find out.

And please pass on to your developer and builder friends that I'm house-hunting now, would really like some acreage, but will not buy property on a well unless the future cost of a community well or hooking up to a water district factors in.  I'm really afraid to buy outside the city water system, because I'm quite certain -- contrary to all the spin -- that water will be a huge issue for our area for the rest of our lives.

Dave Gardner

Duncan Bremer's reply:

Thanks for your comments. I might point out that I was instrumental in getting the County Water Authority going and have been involved in water issues for nearly a decade. I have been advocating for more public information and education on the subject for quite a while. We are now only seeing the begining of the information and education that must take place. I am also Vice President of the Colorado Water Partnership, which is addressing this issue at the State level, educating lawmakers and the States leadership and public on water issues. Education and good information is the first step. I agree that solutions will only come by cooperative efforts and so have advocated for the formation of a well-owner organization, which is now taking place and I hope will find a seat on the Water Authority Board, although state law does not permit them to have a vote.
 
The point is that the information must first be developed and then disseminated and digetsted. The news media is addicted to controversy and so will protray the situation a much more urgent than it is. Many people are only now coming to grips with the fact that we live on a non-renewable water resource. That should not cause panic, but adjustment in thinking. There is plenty of water for the foreseeable future. The Commissioners have been dealing with this issue very conservatively since 1986 when the Board adopted the 300 year rule. It requires the subdivision show it has legal right to Denver Basin water sufficient for the subdivision's first 300 years. That is the most conservative rule in the State. It is 3 times more conservative than the State's 100 year rule. I have been defending that rule since before I started to run for this position. It does limit development. It also forced developments to seek renewable water or reduce total development and set aside open space. For instance, the Falcon area, which is the fastest growing area in unincorporated El Paso County, has been forced to grow on renewable water obtained from the Upper Black Squirrel. Otherwise they would not have been permitted to develop at such density. Kings Deer, on the other hand, developed on shallow wells in the Dawson, but engineering shows they have about 750 years worth of water at that density.
 
One other factor we have seen is that the Town of Monument and Palmer Lake have not been as restrictive. They still apply the 100 year rule. They are pumping water at a higher rate and therefore pumping down their wells, and perhaps having an influence on other wells. Donala (Gleneagle) has also been pumping down at the higher rate. It was permitted before the 300 year rule was instituted.
 
My point is that good planning already includes good planning for water. There is a lot of water. However, if you and others pump your wells, they will eventually have reduced yields and they will eventually require replacement. Mine, too. Nothing to panic about. Just reality. Just an opportunity to get good information and put it to work in our planning. Lets not reduce our property values by making people think we are in some dire straights. We are not. In all this drought, do you know how many calls I have gotten from people whose wells have gone dry, or even have dropped precipitously? None. Zero. We are actually doing very well.
Do not misunderstand. I am not saying there is nothing to worry about. I am saying that we can address the issues sensibly, over time and cooperatively. I am not saying there should be no growth limits based on water. I am saying that we already have them in place, thanks to some Board action about 15 years ago. I am not saying they are perfect. I am saying they can be improved. I am saying that we do not need to have some drastic limit on growth in the unincorporated County. We do need to watch what other jurisdictions and water districts do. We do need to band together to watch and debate and protect our interests. We do not have a right to unlimited water. We have only a limited source.
 
I do disagree with one lady who tried to tell me that government should prevent someone else from putting a well on their property because their pumping water on their property might reduce the amount of water she is able to pump on hers. You may disagree with me. I do not feel it is right for the government to prohibit your neighbor from doing on his property what you are permitted to do. We are in this together. Lets behave like adults and neighbors and see what the issues are and address them together intelligently.
 
Again, thanks for your interest. It is gratifying to finally have some of the public really get interested. Please follow up by reading the report in more detail. It is full of useful information. We need your informed participation.

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 12:59:50 -0600
To: Duncan Bremer <duncan_bremer@...>
From: Dave Gardner <dave@...>
Subject: conservatism
Cc: No More Growth <nomoregrowth@yahoogroups.com>, Chuck Brown <chuck_brown@...>, Ed Jones <ed_jones@...>, Tom Huffman <tom_huffman@...>, Jeri Howells <jeri_howells@...>

Mr. Bremer,

Just read your quote in today's Gazette about anti-growth sentiment being an anomaly because conservatism usually means less government.  I don't take exception to that.  But you must know there ARE some things people can only accomplish by working as a group.  Protecting the integrity of our water supply is one.  So please do NOT use conservatism as an excuse for not stepping up to tackle a tough problem that we will one day WISH we had dealt with before it was too late.  I, for one, don't think we should just invite all comers to the county, knowing full-well we will have to go to extreme lengths to meet the water needs of this community.  This raises serious questions about how to deal with property rights vs. greater common good, and the civic leader(s) with vision and the long-term health of our community will have the fortitude to step up and do what's right.  I'm typically a conservative and favor less government, but not on the issues of growth and water.  I think we're nuts to sell the soul of El Paso County in the interest of a few jobs and a few more dollars.  Am I one of a small minority on this issue?  We're going to find out.

And please pass on to your developer and builder friends that I'm house-hunting now, would really like some acreage, but will not buy property on a well unless the future cost of a community well or hooking up to a water district factors in.  I'm really afraid to buy outside the city water system, because I'm quite certain -- contrary to all the spin -- that water will be a huge issue for our area for the rest of our lives.

Dave Gardner

Jan,  Thanks for joining the group.  And I appreciate both your
comments and your compliments.  Frankly I'm surprised more haven't
joined, even though I have not publicized it widely.  Anything you
can do to help will be appreciated.

I'm NOT so sure all the politicians are corrupt.  I think they have a
distorted view of who their constituents are and what they want.  I
am guessing that about 490,000 of the 500,000 people in the county
would prefer little or no growth, but where are those voices?

We have to find ways to be heard and to maintain our credibility, so
I'm trying not to be too vitriolic (it's not easy!).

Jan,  Thanks for joining the group.  And I appreciate both your
comments and your compliments.  Frankly I'm surprised more haven't
joined, even though I have not publicized it widely.  Anything you
can do to help will be appreciated.

I'm NOT so sure all the politicians are corrupt.  I think they have a
distorted view of who their constituents are and what they want.  I
am guessing that about 490,000 of the 500,000 people in the county
would prefer little or no growth, but where are those voices?

We have to find ways to be heard and to maintain our credibility, so
I'm trying not to be too vitriolic (it's not easy!).

Dave

--- In nomoregrowth@y..., "wiwleb" <wiwleb@c...> wrote:
> EXCELLOENT info, Dave!
>
>
>
> --- In nomoregrowth@y..., nomoregrowth@y... wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This email message is a notification to let you know that
> > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the nomoregrowth
> > group.
> >
> >   File        : /Quotes About Growth.doc
> >   Uploaded by : davegardner80906 <davegardner80906@y...>
> >   Description : Quotes from our leaders and a few visionaries
> >
> > You can access this file at the URL
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nomoregrowth/files/Quotes%20About%
> 20Growth.doc
> >
> > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit
> >
> > http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > davegardner80906 <davegardner80906@y...>

EXCELLOENT info, Dave!



--- In nomoregrowth@y..., nomoregrowth@y... wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the nomoregrowth
> group.
>
>   File        : /Quotes About Growth.doc
>   Uploaded by : davegardner80906 <davegardner80906@y...>
>   Description : Quotes from our leaders and a few visionaries
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nomoregrowth/files/Quotes%20About%
20Growth.doc
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
>
> Regards,
>
> davegardner80906 <davegardner80906@y...>

Dave,
Are you going to share these replies with the Gazette Community Forum
people?  It might be a VERY good ideato do so!!!
Jan


--- In nomoregrowth@y..., "davegardner80906" <davegardner80906@y...>
wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>       Thanks for writing.  I've gotten many similar e-mails, so
rest
> assured, you aren't the only one who feels this way.  I wish the
> water crisis could be solved by just not issuing any new water
taps,
> not allowing any new sod to be planted for the next few months
until
> we pass a residential landscape ordinance or having not sold the
> Broadmoor 3 million gallons of potable water. Everything that is
> mentioned up above over a year would probably amount to less than a
> half days water use in the summer.  The reservoirs would still be
at
> 30% of capacity, stage two water restrictions would still be in
> place. I know the tendency is to find something to blame,but there
> just isn't a magic solution.
>      What we would have accomplished by the actions above is to
have
> put a great deal of people out of work.  I'm not sure if you have
> been reading about our current unemployment, but it is worse than
it
> has been since the early 90's recession. In fact, our 6.2%
> unemployment rate is the second highest of any major city in the
> state.  We lost 4000 jobs in 2001 and on our way to breaking that
> dubious statistic this year -- so far we are at 2300. It has been
> estimated by Dave Bamberger, a local economist, that if we stop
> issuing any new residential or commercial water taps, in effect,
> shutting down the new building industry, that as many as 18,000
> direct jobs would be lost, our unemployment would rise to over 14%,
> housing values would drop 20% and that the region would have its
> worst recession in history. That's assuming that all that new
growth
> doesn't just go out to the County.  Right now, over half our
> residential building permits are issued in the County.  Yes, we
would
> have more water for city dwellers.  But an artificial growth boom
in
> the County would also create the same kind of sprawl and traffic
> nightmares that now plague Denver.  And the County is in a such a
> funding shortfall that they are having a difficult time finding
> enough money to keep criminals in jail let alone build road and
other
> capital infastructure projects needed to  accomodate tremendous new
> growth.
>      I wish there was a simple answer to the growth problem.  I
have
> been here since 1970, and all the traffic and sprawl bugs me too.
> But right now, 60% of our growth is birth rate over death rate.
Then
> our two largest industries, the military and tourism, bring tens of
> 1000's of people here each year to inadvertantly show off what a
> great place Colorado Springs is to live.
>       I know that the perception is that growth is caused by new
jobs
> and those darn developers all of us are in pockets of, but the
> reality is the vast majority of new jobs ( I think well`over 80%)
are
> filled by people who already live here.  And if we weren't living
> longer and having too many children, then there wouldn't be so much
> demand for new homes.  Low interest rates are also to blame these
> days.
>      So, the only solutions I can think of to stop new growth are
to
> shut down the military, outlaw tourism, raise interest rates, not
> allow people over a certain age access to health care and make
birth
> control mandatory.
> By the way Dave, are you a native?  Do you have any kids?
>        I'm afraid that the best we can do is plan for our growth.
I'm
> not sure we have always done a good job of that in the past,
> particularly our road system, but one area we have planned well for
> as a city, is securing water rights. Colorado Springs Utilities has
> been very aggressive over the last several decades and in normal or
> even dry weather years, we wouldn't have a problem.  But a drought
> like this, less than 4 inches instead of 14 this year, one third
the
> snowpack last winter, week after week of over 90 degree heat, is
> different. And you are right, we can't sustain our current level of
> landscaping into the future.
>       Council and Utilities are trying to deal with situation
without
> trastic impacts on our economy.  We not only have new restrictions,
> we are putting a huge effort into conservation education, offering
> rebates for low flow toilets, less consumptive washing machines and
> new water conserving landscaping.  We are overiding convenants that
> require too much sod.  We have raised water rates so those who use
> the most are paying a larger rate and those who conserve will
realize
> a savings.  Our parks have reduced water consumption by over 30%.
We
> have worked out water saving plans with our large corporate users,
> including the Broadmoor, who is now using 20% less than normal
> overall.  We are also bringing many billions of gallons new water
> into the system over the next year by expanding our Otero pipeline
> and by treating several non-potable sources such as Bear Creek and
> well water. We are working as aggressively as is humanly possible
to
> expand the Pueblo reservoir and the Southern delivery system.  And
we
> aren't going to run out of water soon if we all do our part to
> conserve.
>      Having said all that, we do need to landscape differently in
the
> future. Half of our water use in Colorado Springs is used for
outdoor
> landscaping, and half of that in past has been wasted because our
> citizens water too much, at the wrong times of the day, don't have
> efficient irrigation systems or miss the landscaping and water the
> pavement instead.  It just seems to make good sense to try to
change
> the waterwasting we do today for the future. But this drought makes
> it all the more imperative. That's why we will have a new
residential
> landscape ordinance after the first of the year, just as we now
> have for all new commercial buildings. That's why we will probably
> charge even higher rates for overusers and give even more rebates
and
> other incentives for those who want to change their landscaping and
> conserve. That's why we will be even more diligent in helping
> citizens in our community learn to not waste water in the home.  I
am
> convinced we can have a green city, one that has a great quality of
> life, and still have enough water for our children and their
> children.  We just all need to work together to make it  happen.
>       Again, Dave, thanks for your concern.  It won't happen
> overnight, but I am optimistic that we will all do our part to get
> through this.
>                  Richard Skorman

Dave,
But you already knew they were corrupt to their very cores, right?
Jan


--- In nomoregrowth@y..., "davegardner80906" <davegardner80906@y...>
wrote:
> In a message dated 9/2/02 8:22:42 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> dave@v... writes:
>
>
> City Council’s response to the crisis is biased toward
business
> (surprise!), at the expense of the welfare of everyday citizens.
>
> Dave: While I respect your right to air your point of view, this
kind
> of oversimplification does more harm than good. Who do you think
> BUSINESS is? Business IS everyday citizens. Just for an example,
the
> housing and building industry employs tens of thousands of people --

> all the way from the people you would consider rich developers to
the
> drywall hangers and landscapers and electricians and plumbers and
> framers and and and and ... roofers and masons and then there are
the
> jobs that depend on those jobs. Using the example of the housing
and
> building industry, it has a multiplier in the community of at least
2
> times ... meaning for every job directly in the industry (framer,
> roofer, etc) there are 2 other jobs in the economy that depend on
it:
> drycleaners, deli workers, garbage collectors, etc. Business is
even
> me, a little one-person PR company, who is working on Labor Day to
> make ends meet. So business is many of us.
>
> So if we do what you would seem to recommend, cut off all water
taps,
> we would be causing the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in a
matter
> of weeks. And that's just one segment of the community. What
happens
> when new employers won't come here because the city leaders have
made
> a bad decision that disproportionately damages their local economy?
> That means the guy who e-mailed me other day, the layed-off IT
worker
> who's driving a schoolbus, can't get another good job. And guess
what
> Dave, he's holding us accountable for that. Lot's of people are.
> They're everyday citizens. The people who stand to lose from us
> making JUST ONE wrong move are your neighbors. My neighbors. People
> with house payments and kids and car pools and dogs and cats and
> everyday lives.
>
> Dave: City leaders are going to do what we have to do, when we have
> to do it. We aren't stupid and we aren't corrupt. We ARE in
> possession of a heck of a lot of information that you choose not to
> be burdened with, and WE ARE trying to prevent collateral damage to
> the community.
>
> When you oversimplify complex issues, you nothing to advance the
> community discussion. Even oversimplifying the concept of "growth"
is
> harmful to the public discussion because growth means different
> things to different people. You are a really, really bright guy,
and
> you could join the public discussion instead of taking pot shots at
> those who ARE at the table. Why don't you come to the table? These
> issues are even more compelling when you are in possession of
actual
> facts.
>
> I remain in your service, and always willing to deal with the facts.
>
> Margaret Radford

--- In nomoregrowth@y..., "davegardner80906" <davegardner80906@y...>
wrote:
> You're no doubt reading this because you're concerned about quality
> of life in Colorado Springs.  It was once an absolutely gorgeous,
> charming village where we could truly enjoy the great outdoors.
> We've taken her for granted and packed more and more people in,
> mostly in the interest of money -- and in the process clogged the
> roadways, fouled the air, and used up most the water here and
> elsewhere.  It's still a decent place, and I started this group in
> the hope it's not too late for us to take back our town and avoid
> turning it into the next Southern California.

Hi Dave,

I read about your group here on Yahoo on the Gazette Community
Forums. Figured it was a group I just HAD to join! <grin>

I lived in Monument for about 5 years.  Moved up to Teller County
when I realized that El Paso County politicians were corrupt to the
core.

> I'm just beginning the process, so help me, please, and accompany
me
> on this journey.  If you're interested in learning more about
growth
> issues, click on "Links" in the menu at the left.  Also click
> on "Files" to find some interesting information and opinions.

Just got here, but I certainly will do that!

> Personally, I don't think any of us will be happier with the
quality
> of life in C. Springs ten years from now.  If we could, we'd stop
> right here at a half-million people.  We don't have the water, the
> air, the space, or the money for roads the next half-million people
> will require.  Realistically, we may have no choice but to continue
> growing, but perhaps we can slow down and do it much more
> intelligently.

In my opinion and experience, you guys down there are going to have
to remove your current bunch of corrupt politicians before you can
ever effect any changes.

> Keep coming back to learn, share what you know, and become
involved.
> Our voice needs to be as loud or louder than the campaign
> contribution checks of the Housing and Building Association.

Absolutely! Only way to go!  Standing up to be counted, PUBLICLY,
will get the job done.  I congratulate you for having the guts to do
that.  And you can count on me to help all I can!

Jan

My reply to Cara's piece about Nickerson:

I have just finished leaning over my toilet after reading Dave
Nickerson's memo to planning staffers: "It is my belief that our role
in City Government is to help the applicant successfully process
their project plans"  We've all known it for years.  The powers that
be try to embarrass us every time we point it out.  But here it is in
black and white.  Money talks.  Developers own this town; they own
our elected leaders and even the top city staffers.  What I would
give for Nickerson to have written, "Our role in City Government is
to represent the taxpaying citizens.  I commend you for taking your
time and not succumbing to the pressure being applied by big
business.  We represent the individual citizen as equally as we do
the major contributors to our leaders' political campaigns.  Please
do make sure all applications meet our most stringent standards.  We
get no second chances when it comes to developing our city."

This was Cara DeGette's opinion piece in this week's Independent.
Very disturbing:

September 12 -18, 2002
Public Eye
by Cara DeGette


Most local developers publicly scoff at the widely held notion that
they control City Hall and the people who run it.

Newly appointed Deputy City Manager Dave Nickerson has proven just
how wrong they are.

On Aug. 22, Nickerson issued a missive to city staffers who are
involved in the various stages of reviewing and processing
development projects. In it, he sternly, almost angrily, warned them
that, when it comes to development projects, the developers are
always right.

In the memo, obtained by the Independent, Nickerson chastised unnamed
staff for slowing down development projects. He accused them of
everything from a "lack of consistency," to imposing "personal
preferences," to working too slowly while reviewing proposals, to
having the gall to redesign work that has been submitted by private
sector planners.

That sort of nonsense, Nickerson indicated, must stop immediately. He
didn't actually use the term "rubber stamp," but the directive was
clear.

"When in doubt we should give the applicant the benefit of the doubt
and move the plan forward," Nickerson wrote in the memo, which can be
read in its entirety below.

"It is my belief that our role in City Government is to help the
applicant successfully process their project plans and you will find
that I will not be critical of those that make judgments to further
that end."

Nickerson claimed he was driven to deliver the directive due to
an "unprecedented number of complaints from the building and
development industry or anyone, for that matter, that has recently
had a land use matter before City staff and/or Planning Commission
and City Council."

In an interview this week, Nickerson claimed he has fielded "more
than 100" complaints from developers and others. However, he refused
to quantify any of the specifics of the alleged complaints, including
exactly who has lodged criticisms with the city, or the projects at
issue.

"I would suppose you would call them anecdotal," he said. "I don't
really want to get into specifics because I don't want to embarrass
the staffers or members of the community who want to complain."

Nickerson even put a happy face on his stern directive. "There's
nothing negative about this," he said. "It's a positive thing and I
think it will do positive things for us. It will be positive for the
community and for how the development community views us in city
government."

The deputy city manager, who has worked for the city for 29 years,
most recently overseeing the city's enterprise operations (including
the airport and cemeteries), noted that he has not asked anyone to do
anything "illegal, unethical, improper or [to] give away the farm."
His motivation, he said, stems from a desire that everyone be treated
fairly and consistently.

Nickerson said that, over the years, he has observed the pendulum
swing from developers having control to the current "perception" that
neighborhood groups are dictating growth and development. Both
extremes are inappropriate, he said.

His stance leaves some citizen activists with their jaws
dropped. "Reading Nickerson's letter is appalling for me because what
I've seen for the past 10 years is just the opposite," said Kerri
Olivier, who has worked closely on planning items related to her
Mountain Shadows neighborhood.

"Colorado Springs has been more developer-friendly -- much more so --
than in any other city along the Front Range."

Now, Nickerson is a nice enough guy and certainly has proven himself
a team player. But let's consider his position.

Last year, while Nickerson was overseeing cemeteries and a dead
airport, the City Council adopted what they heralded as a
groundbreaking Comprehensive Plan, establishing guidelines to map how
the city will grow for the next 20 years.

The Comp Plan was supposed to empower city planners with what they
never had before: the ability to carefully scrutinize development
projects; enforce rigid land-use policies; and make the call on what
different parts of the city should look like.

At the time, everyone agreed the only way this thing could have teeth
is if the city's planners and engineers could be given the time
necessary to ensure careful, considerate planning was taking place.
Logically, that meant developers would be forced to adhere to higher
standards.

The City Council's endorsement of the Comp Plan was backed up by an
$18,200 tax-paid "Citizens Survey" whose June 2001 findings indicated
an overwhelming majority of city residents believe the city has
fallen down on the planning and growth-management job.

Now, a little more than a year later, we're informed there's a new
deputy in town.

Which begs the obvious question: Why isn't he upholding the law?

-- degette@...


Next week: Meet your developer-friendly City Planning Commission.

__________________________________________________

ENTIRE MEMO from Deputy City Manager Dave Nickerson:

___________________________________________________


Development Review Philosophy and Direction to Staff
Dave Nickerson, Deputy City Manager
August 22, 2002

The purpose of this paper is to provide clarification and direction
to all City staff that is involved in the Development Review Process.
The need for this as arisen from the unprecedented number of
complaints arising from the building and development industry or
anyone, for that matter, that has recently had a land-use matter
before City staff and/or Planning Commission and City Council.

Example of complaints are:

the lack of consistency in the review of plans from one staff member
to another

personal preference being imposed by planners and engineers regarding
plans versus adhering to standards

staff redesigning work that has been prepared by private sector
professional planners and engineers

staff extracting concessions from applicants that are not deemed to
be fair or the responsibility of the applicant but are being demanded
because the City doesn't have the money to meet its responsibilities
regarding development and infrastructure

lack of willingness on the part of many in the building and
development industry to object to requirements or raise the issue
with higher level authorities because of fear that staff will
retaliate in future submissions from those that object

staff has no sense of urgency regarding the timely processing of the
applicant's project plans, and

staff's inability to make a decision and move forward with the item.

Certainly development review staff has a difficult job and has always
and will always be subject to criticism for their role in this
process. Also, along with complaints, there have come many
compliments about individuals that do not engage in the above
practices and do an excellent job. I certainly regret the appearance
that I may be placing you all in the same category but because of the
above issues, I feel the need to provide very clear direction to all
of you at the same time. I will be speaking to all of you about this
but I am taking the extra step of putting this in writing so that
everyone gets the same word and there are no misunderstandings about
my comments or direction

First, let me say that if any staff members are engaging in any of
the above practices, please cease those practices and do not engage
in them again.

Second, I have attached a graphic that helps me to explain my
philosophy and direction to you. It is what I call "the range of good
decisions". I will hand out a copy of that graphic and talk through
it with you in detail. However, the essence of that graphic is to
indicate that in any planning or engineering project, there is a
range of reasonable solutions. If a reasonable solution/plan is
submitted for your review, you should accept it and move it along to
the next stage. You are not to impose personal preferences, redesign
the plan, etc. The difficulty is in determining the line at which a
submission does not meet acceptable professional
standards/requirements. However, when in doubt, we should give the
applicant the benefit of the doubt and move the plan forward. The
applicant can be a developer or building community. Simple that
anyone that brings an application before us should get the same
customer service and access to reasonable timeframes for processing
the request. I want to make it clear that I am not asking staff to do
anything illegal, unethical, improper or "give away the farm", as the
saying goes. I am simply saying that we need to be flexible, open to
new ideas, decisive and move the review along.

It is my belief that our role in City Government is to help the
applicant successfully process their project plans and you will find
that I will not be critical of those that make judgements to further
that end. Even if I personally, might have decided to approach the
matter differently, that staff member is trying to make the process
work for our applicant and community.

Some of you may have different opinions from those that I have
expressed above. I sincerely invite you to talk with me openly,
whether in group meetings or privately, about your opinions. I make
it a practice to treat everyone with dignity and respect because I
like to be treated that way as well. I hope that you feel free to
speak candidly with me.

There is a great deal that I have undoubtedly omitted from this draft
but I think I have make the key points that I feel are necessary to
discussion. I look forward to our conversation n this and other City
issues.

(signed) Dave Nickerson

SCOTT & TEMBY ONLY HALF RIGHT

I agree with Rocky Scott and Will Temby (Gazette 9/2/02) – we DO need
to save water aggressively.  And the issue of water WILL impact jobs.
Beyond that their view was a little extreme.  You can't blame them.
They're paid to enhance commerce and bring business to town. But I'm
afraid our leaders only hear from developers who want unbridled
growth and whining citizens who want to water their lawn every other
day.  We need a voice of reason.

The truth is we probably need to limit growth.  Scott would have us
believe immigration doesn't impact population growth; that residents
are just making too many babies. Correction: immigration is
responsible for at least 40% of our population growth, and 2/3 of the
growth of the state, so managing that can make a significant
difference.

They warn of the dire economic consequences of putting construction
workers out of work.  No doubt limiting new water taps would cause
some pain.  But should we artificially bolster an industry that needs
to adapt to the hand nature deals us? From this day forward we'll
never have the luxury of approaching water the way we used to.
Perhaps some of those builders should be working where growth is
needed and water is plentiful -- rather than in the desert, where we
already have to pipe water from other places.

They tell us new water taps are insignificant, yet their own figures
indicate a third of our taps were added in the past decade!  Yes, we
DO need to conserve, even if we put limits on growth.  But what might
happen if we don't initiate some limits to growth?  Will people be
shooting each other over water in the year 2025?  Scott and Temby
didn't mention it's a foregone conclusion most of the domestic wells
in the county will run dry during this century.  If what I witnessed
at the El Paso County Water Authority meeting this week is any
indication, water wars will make road rage look like a Sunday School
picnic.

Rocky and Will think we're so small-minded and short-sighted we'll
opt for prosperity now without regard for future consequences.  I
have more faith in our local citizens.  I believe we're willing to
endure some pain now in the interest of doing what's right for the
long-term viability of our community.  If I'm right, we need to give
our elected leaders permission to do something about the fact we
can't meet the inherent obligation to provide water, roads, public
safety and clean air to over 40,000 new customers in just the next
decade.  Do we WANT to add that kind of burden to our infrastructure
and quality of life?  We don't NEED to, and it's probably not
advisable to, as Scott and Temby suggest.

Dave Gardner

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the nomoregrowth
group.

   File        : /Quotes About Growth.doc
   Uploaded by : davegardner80906 <davegardner80906@...>
   Description : Quotes from our leaders and a few visionaries

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nomoregrowth/files/Quotes%20About%20Growth.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

davegardner80906 <davegardner80906@...>

(sent 9/5/2002; subject: You're OK)

Margaret,

I know we both value our time.  So I don't expect to keep this banter
up.

Again, thanks.  I'll bet we ARE more alike than we think.  And I
don't blame you for being sensitive about my remarks.  I just wanted
you to know that I'm willing to to suffer a little now, not placing
economic prosperity above prudent decisions about our resources.  If
I feel that way, statistically you have other constituents who do.
THIS IS IMPORTANT: I don't expect to force my ways on others.  But if
the majority of us out here were more interested in limiting growth
than keeping jobs, how would you know it if we didn't tell you?  I'll
be the first to shut up when it is shown that the majority will take
greenbacks now over quality of life in ten or twenty years.  Don't
forget that hanging around the El Paso Club, Chamber, EDC, etc. you
are going to get one side of the story.  I was attempting to
communicate to you from the trenches!  Yes, I'm anti-growth and I'm
not ashamed to admit it, though I am trying to figure out how to be
that way without being pigeon-holed as a tree-hugging activist!  I'll
bet you $1,000 right now that in twenty years you and I will not be
happier with the way C. Springs is then than we are today.  How about
it?

Sorry you feel I'm name-calling.  I've seen some venomous stuff out
there, and I feel I'm being frank without being insulting.  There is
some truth to what Tosches writes.

What it came down to is this:  I wanted you to know how I felt.
Simple as that.  I felt I got a lecture from you indicating I don't
know what I'm talking about and should leave it to the pros.

BUT, I didn't get your message about supporting some kind of
roundtable.  Would love to know what you said.

Dave

(sent 9/5/2002)

>Your comments came off as condescending and elitist:<

Dear Dave: One of the unfortunate facts about e-mail is that tone is
not always clear. If my comments came off as condescending and
elitist, yours came off as rabidly and irrationally anti-growth. So,
shall we spend time worrying about our tone, or shall we talk
substance? One thing you will find about me if you ever talk to any
of my constituents who know me is that I am hardly condescending and
elitist. In fact, I"m guessing I make less money than you do and live
in a less expensive house. But I do stand my ground. You appear to
have some ability to influence others, and again, I would argue that
your oversimplification of these issues is not helping.

>You assume I don't read the papers and don't understand the
ramifications of what I suggest.  You seem to assume that we are all
whiners dying to return to our old ways of wasting water.  I can
assure you my lawn is the least of my concerns.  I was conserving
water long before limited water resources were even on your radar
screen, and I don't expect we'll ever return to our old water-wasting
ways.  I'm willing to make great sacrifices for the sustainability
and livability of our community.  And that includes living with a
year or two of economic pain in the interest of LONG-TERM viability.
You tell me nothing in your paragraph above I didn't already know.  I
tell you this not to be argumentative, but to underscore that I'm not
interested in mortgaging our future in the interest of a couple of
years of economic prosperity.<

Dave, I don't know you except by reputation, and even that knowledge
is vague, at best. So I don't assume you don't read the paper or
anything of the kind. But what I am saying is, it's not your right to
decide that YOU are willing to make sacrifices and then force that
choice onto other people. If you want to experience a year or two of
economic pain, then you are free to do that. I, for one, would like
to keep the number of people suffering to a minimum. As for
sustainability, I agree with many of your points. I would like to
have an economy that is less dependent on tech stuff, or the
military, or construction, or whatever. But we are where we are. This
is reality. And we can't go back again. We can only go forward. So,
if less volatility and more sustainability are the goals, let's work
on that. Do you belong to the Chamber or the EDC? Do you attend any
of their functions or participate in any of their functions where
ideas like these are discussed. I do, and I can tell you that people
are working on these ideas in this community. Why don't you join
them?

>He's looking for an IT job.  Unemployed construction workers are not
going to compete with him for jobs.  And bringing in new businesses
will do little to improve his situation, as that will bring more IT
workers into town to compete with him for that job.<

Again, I remind you that the economy is complex. A guy looking for an
IT job instead of a bus driving job may well be in direct competition
with construction workers. I know several layed-off IT guys who ARE
working in construction right now. So there you go. People change
jobs and careers numerous times in their lives. Besides, the point
is, an economy that becomes depressed because of major problems in
just one industry is no less depressed. If tens of thousand of people
lose their jobs in one industry, their unemployment sends negative
impacts throughout the economy. Employers of all kinds are less
likely to come here, or to stay here. And besides that, most of the
tech companies that have come here have NOT brought a lot of their
own people. One of the reasons they choose to come here is because we
have an educated, skilled workforce.

Dave: I repeat without apology, and without the personal insults you
seem to want to throw: We will do what we have to do when we have to
do it. We are in possession of more information than you've chosen to
get. That is, frankly, our job. We are supposed to learn all about
this stuff and make good decisions. We're doing the best we know how
to do. If you want more information, come to Utility Board meetings
or City Council meetings or watch them on TV. Keep asking me/us
questions. CSU has various issue papers on lots of these topics that
you could read. This information, for the most part, is freely
available.

But you also be clear about your own position: You portray yourself
as not anti-growth, but you are anti-growth. There's no shame in
that. But don't blame other people for disagreeing with you.

>I hate to think you would prefer not to have any public discussion.
If you were in a debate would you take half your time to present your
opponent's case, in order to avoid oversimplification?  <

Dave: I'm the one who agreed with you that perhaps a more organized
community roundtable or discussion is a good idea. And no, I would
not take the time to present my opponent's case. But I would take the
time to understand my opponent's case, in order to make my own all
the better. I've made a life of understanding my opponent's position
in order to better fight my fight, and even find common ground for
solutions.


>The Gazette gives a full page to the pro-growth, business-at-any-
cost agenda, while limiting letters from everyday citizens to 4 or 5
sentences.  Forgive me if I focus on the salient points that might
help convince us to change course.<

Not my problem. Talk to the Gazette. The new editorial page guy is
named Sean Page, I think. Seems nice.  Also talk to Springs Magazine,
who have a point-counterpoint section for this kind of thing.

Dave: If were truly condescending and elitist, I would have ignored
both of your e-mails the way my predecessor in this seat ignored
mine. Your forget, I was a citizen activist just a short 1.5 years
ago. I still am, in my way. So, instead of blowing you off, I took an
hour out of my paying-business life (as opposed to council) to write
more to you. My advice to you: Quit being sensitive about whether
council members seem elitist. We're  your neighbors, your colleagues,
your friends. For the most part, we probably make less money than
you. And ultimately, we're fellow citizens trying to figure out a
tough time for all of ours sakes. I know you're trying to do the same.

I remain faithful in your service

MAG

(sent 9/5/2002)

Margaret,

I do appreciate the fact that you read my e-mail and took the time to
respond.  I've considered your points for a few days, and feel Ia
response is warranted.  Your comments came off as condescending and
elitist:

>Dave: While I respect your right to air your point of view, this
kind of oversimplification does more harm than good. Who do you think
BUSINESS is? Business IS everyday citizens. Just for an example, the
housing and building industry employs tens of thousands of people --
all the way from the people you would consider rich developers to the
drywall hangers and landscapers and electricians and plumbers and
framers and and and and ... roofers and masons and then there are the
jobs that depend on those jobs. Using the example of the housing and
building industry, it has a multiplier in the community of at least 2
times ... <

You assume I don't read the papers and don't understand the
ramifications of what I suggest.  You seem to assume that we are all
whiners dying to return to our old ways of wasting water.  I can
assure you my lawn is the least of my concerns.  I was conserving
water long before limited water resources were even on your radar
screen, and I don't expect we'll ever return to our old water-wasting
ways.  I'm willing to make great sacrifices for the sustainability
and livability of our community.  And that includes living with a
year or two of economic pain in the interest of LONG-TERM viability.
You tell me nothing in your paragraph above I didn't already know.  I
tell you this not to be argumentative, but to underscore that I'm not
interested in mortgaging our future in the interest of a couple of
years of economic prosperity.

>That means the guy who e-mailed me other day, the layed-off IT
worker who's driving a schoolbus, can't get another good job. And
guess what Dave, he's holding us accountable for that. <

He's looking for an IT job.  Unemployed construction workers are not
going to compete with him for jobs.  And bringing in new businesses
will do little to improve his situation, as that will bring more IT
workers into town to compete with him for that job.

>City leaders are going to do what we have to do, when we have to do
it. We aren't stupid and we aren't corrupt. We ARE in possession of a
heck of a lot of information that you choose not to be burdened
with,<

Such an elitist attitude about governing is what is harmful.  Please
don't tell that to every citizen who wants you to know how s/he
feels.  It's your job to listen to your constituents and represent
us.  The history books are littered with leaders who thought they
knew better than the people they represented.  Most of them also have
criminal records.  IF there are facts we citizens don't have, then
you ought to be making those facts available to us.

>When you oversimplify complex issues, you nothing to advance the
community discussion. Even oversimplifying the concept of "growth" is
harmful to the public discussion because growth means different
things to different people. <

I oversimplify by advancing one side of the issue, just like the pro-
growth folks oversimplify when they advance their side.  I hate to
think you would prefer not to have any public discussion.  If you
were in a debate would you take half your time to present your
opponent's case, in order to avoid oversimplification?  The Gazette
gives a full page to the pro-growth, business-at-any-cost agenda,
while limiting letters from everyday citizens to 4 or 5 sentences.
Forgive me if I focus on the salient points that might help convince
us to change course.

Willing to endure a little pain in the interest of the long-term best
interests of Colorado Springs,
Dave Gardner

(sent 9/6/2002)

Ted, This reply is days after your response to me, mainly because
I wanted to reply with a cool head.  I hope you read my reply to
Richard Skorman.  I won't repeat those points here, except to say
that I had knowledge of all the facts you sent me when I wrote my
initial e-mail.  I tell you this because, though I'm sure there is
much I don't know, the opinion I expressed was not as uninformed as
you seem to assume.

>this council will do what it takes to insure adequate supplies of
water for culinary use.<

So far, Ted, I'm not sure you grasp the long-term implications.  If
you get nothing else from me, understand this: I AM NOT CONCERNED
ABOUT WHETHER I CAN WATER MY LAWN NEXT SUMMER.  I am concerned about
what life in Colorado Springs will be like in the year 2025.

>i invite you to indeed begin a public conversation, but one based on
accurate information and a solid understanding of complex nuanced
issues<

I find that insulting.  I expressed an opinion.  I was in possession
of all the facts you included in your reply.  I presented no untrue
facts.  I can assure you I'm fully capable of understanding
complexities and nuances.  If it's more complex than we citizens
currently appreciate, then I suggest you bring us up to speed.
Unbridled growth also presents some complexities you may not yet
appreciate.  Because someone disagrees with you, as I obviously do,
does NOT necessarily mean I have inaccurate information. Don't assume
that all your constituents are more interested in today's paycheck
than the long-term livability of our city.

My guess is that most of the citizens of Colorado Springs, being in
possession of the basic facts about water resources, conservation and
supply, do not believe it is prudent to invite an unlimited number of
people to share this limited resource.  Your hearing from me
definitely means there are at least a few hundred or a few thousand
who feel this way.  And how are we to let you know?  I certainly hope
you don't insult every voter who goes to the trouble to let you know
their opinion.

Can we stop growth altogether?  It's doubtful.  But we need to
seriously change our attitude about it.  Growth will not solve ANY of
our problems.  It will create and accentuate every problem we grapple
with today.  Los Angeles, San Jose, Dallas, Austin, Atlanta.  There
is money in these cities, but they are pretty miserable places to
live, and most of their residents will be the first to complain.  So
which city are you modeling Colorado Springs after?

>avoid an exercise in populist demagoguery.<

I'm sorry you're not interested in the opinions of your constituents.

I'll rest easy tonight, knowing you've got it all well in hand.
Thanks for taking care of us poor, uneducated, uninformed, confused
sots.


Dave Gardner

(sent 9/5/2002)

Richard, I must thank you for reading my e-mail, and for
apparently putting quite a bit of time and energy into your
response.  I must also say, however, that I was put off by the tone
of your reply.  I also expected more independent thinking from you.

At 07:06 PM 9/2/02 -0400, you wrote:
>I wish the water crisis could be solved by just not issuing any new
water taps, not allowing any new sod to be planted for the next few
months until we pass a residential landscape ordinance or having not
sold the Broadmoor 3 million gallons of potable water. Everything
that is mentioned up above over a year would probably amount to less
than a half days water use in the summer.<

Oh, then I'd like to ask for an exemption for watering my lawn.  It
won't even amount to a drop in the above bucket.  Oh, wait a minute,
CSU tells us that EVERY drop counts.  WHEN will we change course?
4,000 taps a year WILL amount to a lot of water, especially if every
one of them represents water we don't have now.

>What we would have accomplished by the actions above is to have put
a great deal of people out of work.  ... It has been estimated by
Dave Bamberger, a local economist, that if we stop issuing any new
residential or commercial water taps, in effect, shutting down the
new building industry, that as many as 18,000 direct jobs would be
lost, our unemployment would rise to over 14%, housing values would
drop 20% and that the region would have its worst recession in
history.<

Yes, there would be pain.  But how would that compare to the pain of
people shooting each other over water in 2050?  Or the pain of
trucking in water?  Of wells running dry?  Of $500 monthly household
water bills?  The buggy-whip makers eventually DID have to learn how
to build cars instead.  It would be ludicrous for us to do the wrong
thing, just to preserve jobs -- if those jobs are misplaced.  You
propose we artificially bolster an industry we may very well need
less of.  That will ensure their efforts continue to exacerbate our
problem.  And will ensure that those workers stay in town, performing
an unwanted service and consuming their own share of water.  Perhaps
some of those workers should turn to remodelling.  Perhaps some
should move to communities needing to grow.

>That's assuming that all that new growth doesn't just go out to the
County....  an artificial growth boom in the County would also create
the same kind of sprawl and traffic nightmares that now plague
Denver.<

Yes, the city is not alone in this.  The county will need to do the
hard work, too.

>60% of our growth is birth rate over death rate.... I know that the
perception is that growth is caused by new jobs and
those darn developers all of us are in pockets of, but the reality is
the vast majority of new jobs ( I think well`over 80%) are filled by
people who already live here.<

How many of that 60% you mention moved away within a few years?  How
many moved away when they graduated from school?  Regardless, that
lays nearly half the problem at the door of growth.   And the "people
who already live here" who get the vast majority of new jobs?  How
many have only been here 6 months or a year?  I can drag out some
statistics for you, but I suspect you know what I'm talking about.

>By the way Dave, are you a native?  Do you have any kids?<

Cheap shot, Richard.  I AM a native, and I stopped at two kids.  I'll
be surprised if my kids stay in town after high school.  And my kids
and I were taking military showers when summer began.  How about you
and yours?

>Colorado Springs Utilities has been very aggressive over the last
several decades and in normal or even dry weather years, we wouldn't
have a problem.  But a drought like this, less than 4 inches instead
of 14 this year, one third the snowpack last winter, week after week
of over 90 degree heat, is different.<

What happens if we have five years of drought, or even 2?

>Council and Utilities are trying to deal with situation without
trastic impacts on our economy.<

I appreciate those efforts.  But consider the very real possibility
that the majority of your constituents would rather, in 20 or 30
years, have water to drink, be able to see the mountains rather than
a sea of haze, and not have to leave the house at 6 am to drive 8
miles to work in rush hour traffic.

>We not only have new restrictions, we are ....And we aren't going to
run out of water soon if we all do our part to conserve.<

I read the papers.  Yes, I already know all the things that are
happening.  And I know CSU believes we'll have water to waste within
8 years.  I'm skeptical of this.  This year caught them by surprise,
and I fully expect the battles for water among municipalities and
states are only beginning.  What do you say to the people in outlying
areas -- it's a foregone conclusion their wells will run dry before
this century is over?  That's not on your watch?

I wrote because I wanted all of you to know there is a large
contingent of citizens who are willing to endure a little pain and
are NOT interested in mortgaging the future of this town in the
interest of short-term economic prosperity.

Concerned about the future,
Dave Gardner

Margaret,

Thanks for your quick reply.  I AM willing to come to the table.  I
am trying to come to the table (see bold paragraph below).  I am
trying to get involved, to educate myself, and to be heard.  But I do
disagree with you.  My business would benefit from adding people and
companies to this town.  But I choose NOT to live in a city of one
million people.  And I am willing to sacrifice financially in order
to live in the charming town we are rapidly losing.  Conventional
wisdom is that we have to become a city of one million or starve.  I
have many friends in the business community and I know we disagree
about the need to grow.  But it's time some of us have the guts to
say we aren't interested in destroying the front range in the
interest of having a Lexus in the garage.  That said, I know your job
is not easy.  You do have people out of work who will do anything to
get a job.  You do have property owners who believe they have the
right to cash out.  You do have developers who make their living
expanding our boundaries.  But town after town has gone before us and
made all the mistakes we are making.  The only thing they're happy
about is they have money in their pockets.  It would be intelligent
to try something different.  It would require visionary leadership
and real courage to stand up and just ask the question, "What can we
do to preserve what we have?"  I guess the real question is, "Do we
have a choice?"  I, for one, am not willing to just give up.

As for coming to the table, I'd be willing to arrange a roundtable
discussion of growth and water issues, inviting the real experts
(academic, development, economic, political communities).  Perhaps
you could help me identify the best participants.  Perhaps The
Gazette could publish a transcript.  I AM embarrassed by most of the
anti-growth and water-concerned letters and quotes I read in the
paper.  I am anxious and willing to elevate the dialogue.

As for oversimplification, when the Gazette devotes as much space as
it does to defending The Broadmoor and providing a forum for Scott
and Temby, but edits citizen comments down to four or five sentences,
we have to keep things simple.  It would be nice to see some in-depth
reporting and background on these issues.

I AM business, but I'm just sick of us selling out the front range.

Again, THANK YOU for your attention.    Dave Gardner

Dear Dave:  I want to thank you for your views and to let you know I
agree with Richard Skorman and Margaret Radford.   Their words
represent much of what the Council has been struggling with these
last few months.  I believe we do have a choice but that choice is
many different things to many different  people and we have an
obligation to help deliver that choice to as many of our citizens as
possible.  Thanks again for your views.  All of us hold many of them
in common.
Jim Null

thanks for your comments.  richard skorman's response said it well.
complex issues that indeed affect a broad swath of the community.
this council will do what it takes to insure adequate supplies of
water for culinary use.  the issue is not so much about growth as it
is about consumption and supply (supply issues are about storage and
transport).  average household use exceeds 500 and approaches 1000
gallons/day.  we are moving into plans b and c regarding storage and
transport options.  the plans have been in place for a number of
years,  what we are doing is telescoping the time line for
implementation.  the combination of an aggressive tiered price
structure for water, a generous rebate program for retrofitting of
high water use household appliances and landscape, and a landscape
ordinance will significantly address water consumption.

the people of a community along with the availability of water, power
and transportation are the infrastructure foundation of any
community. in that order of priority.  however all the human talent
and ingenuity in the world cannot make up for absence or lack of
water and power.  in fact considerable amount of human effort in the
course of western US history has been about securing water, as you
know.  we are not oblivious to that and our efforts as the utilities
board as well as that of utilities staff have been focused on
those efforts for decades.

i invite you to indeed begin a public conversation, but one based on
accurate information and a solid understanding of complex nuanced
issues with the intent of contributing to the health, safety,
welfare, and vitality of the community and avoid an exercise in
populist demagoguery.  thanks for your comments,  partners in
service,  ted

Dear Dave,
       Thanks for writing.  I've gotten many similar e-mails, so rest
assured, you aren't the only one who feels this way.  I wish the
water crisis could be solved by just not issuing any new water taps,
not allowing any new sod to be planted for the next few months until
we pass a residential landscape ordinance or having not sold the
Broadmoor 3 million gallons of potable water. Everything that is
mentioned up above over a year would probably amount to less than a
half days water use in the summer.  The reservoirs would still be at
30% of capacity, stage two water restrictions would still be in
place. I know the tendency is to find something to blame,but there
just isn't a magic solution.
      What we would have accomplished by the actions above is to have
put a great deal of people out of work.  I'm not sure if you have
been reading about our current unemployment, but it is worse than it
has been since the early 90's recession. In fact, our 6.2%
unemployment rate is the second highest of any major city in the
state.  We lost 4000 jobs in 2001 and on our way to breaking that
dubious statistic this year -- so far we are at 2300. It has been
estimated by Dave Bamberger, a local economist, that if we stop
issuing any new residential or commercial water taps, in effect,
shutting down the new building industry, that as many as 18,000
direct jobs would be lost, our unemployment would rise to over 14%,
housing values would drop 20% and that the region would have its
worst recession in history. That's assuming that all that new growth
doesn't just go out to the County.  Right now, over half our
residential building permits are issued in the County.  Yes, we would
have more water for city dwellers.  But an artificial growth boom in
the County would also create the same kind of sprawl and traffic
nightmares that now plague Denver.  And the County is in a such a
funding shortfall that they are having a difficult time finding
enough money to keep criminals in jail let alone build road and other
capital infastructure projects needed to  accomodate tremendous new
growth.
      I wish there was a simple answer to the growth problem.  I have
been here since 1970, and all the traffic and sprawl bugs me too.
But right now, 60% of our growth is birth rate over death rate.  Then
our two largest industries, the military and tourism, bring tens of
1000's of people here each year to inadvertantly show off what a
great place Colorado Springs is to live.
       I know that the perception is that growth is caused by new jobs
and those darn developers all of us are in pockets of, but the
reality is the vast majority of new jobs ( I think well`over 80%) are
filled by people who already live here.  And if we weren't living
longer and having too many children, then there wouldn't be so much
demand for new homes.  Low interest rates are also to blame these
days.
      So, the only solutions I can think of to stop new growth are to
shut down the military, outlaw tourism, raise interest rates, not
allow people over a certain age access to health care and make birth
control mandatory.
By the way Dave, are you a native?  Do you have any kids?
        I'm afraid that the best we can do is plan for our growth. I'm
not sure we have always done a good job of that in the past,
particularly our road system, but one area we have planned well for
as a city, is securing water rights. Colorado Springs Utilities has
been very aggressive over the last several decades and in normal or
even dry weather years, we wouldn't have a problem.  But a drought
like this, less than 4 inches instead of 14 this year, one third the
snowpack last winter, week after week of over 90 degree heat, is
different. And you are right, we can't sustain our current level of
landscaping into the future.
       Council and Utilities are trying to deal with situation without
trastic impacts on our economy.  We not only have new restrictions,
we are putting a huge effort into conservation education, offering
rebates for low flow toilets, less consumptive washing machines and
new water conserving landscaping.  We are overiding convenants that
require too much sod.  We have raised water rates so those who use
the most are paying a larger rate and those who conserve will realize
a savings.  Our parks have reduced water consumption by over 30%. We
have worked out water saving plans with our large corporate users,
including the Broadmoor, who is now using 20% less than normal
overall.  We are also bringing many billions of gallons new water
into the system over the next year by expanding our Otero pipeline
and by treating several non-potable sources such as Bear Creek and
well water. We are working as aggressively as is humanly possible to
expand the Pueblo reservoir and the Southern delivery system.  And we
aren't going to run out of water soon if we all do our part to
conserve.
      Having said all that, we do need to landscape differently in the
future. Half of our water use in Colorado Springs is used for outdoor
landscaping, and half of that in past has been wasted because our
citizens water too much, at the wrong times of the day, don't have
efficient irrigation systems or miss the landscaping and water the
pavement instead.  It just seems to make good sense to try to change
the waterwasting we do today for the future. But this drought makes
it all the more imperative. That's why we will have a new residential
landscape ordinance after the first of the year, just as we now
have for all new commercial buildings. That's why we will probably
charge even higher rates for overusers and give even more rebates and
other incentives for those who want to change their landscaping and
conserve. That's why we will be even more diligent in helping
citizens in our community learn to not waste water in the home.  I am
convinced we can have a green city, one that has a great quality of
life, and still have enough water for our children and their
children.  We just all need to work together to make it  happen.
       Again, Dave, thanks for your concern.  It won't happen
overnight, but I am optimistic that we will all do our part to get
through this.
                  Richard Skorman

In a message dated 9/2/02 8:22:42 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
dave@... writes:


City Council’s response to the crisis is biased toward business
(surprise!), at the expense of the welfare of everyday citizens.

Dave: While I respect your right to air your point of view, this kind
of oversimplification does more harm than good. Who do you think
BUSINESS is? Business IS everyday citizens. Just for an example, the
housing and building industry employs tens of thousands of people --
all the way from the people you would consider rich developers to the
drywall hangers and landscapers and electricians and plumbers and
framers and and and and ... roofers and masons and then there are the
jobs that depend on those jobs. Using the example of the housing and
building industry, it has a multiplier in the community of at least 2
times ... meaning for every job directly in the industry (framer,
roofer, etc) there are 2 other jobs in the economy that depend on it:
drycleaners, deli workers, garbage collectors, etc. Business is even
me, a little one-person PR company, who is working on Labor Day to
make ends meet. So business is many of us.

So if we do what you would seem to recommend, cut off all water taps,
we would be causing the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in a matter
of weeks. And that's just one segment of the community. What happens
when new employers won't come here because the city leaders have made
a bad decision that disproportionately damages their local economy?
That means the guy who e-mailed me other day, the layed-off IT worker
who's driving a schoolbus, can't get another good job. And guess what
Dave, he's holding us accountable for that. Lot's of people are.
They're everyday citizens. The people who stand to lose from us
making JUST ONE wrong move are your neighbors. My neighbors. People
with house payments and kids and car pools and dogs and cats and
everyday lives.

Dave: City leaders are going to do what we have to do, when we have
to do it. We aren't stupid and we aren't corrupt. We ARE in
possession of a heck of a lot of information that you choose not to
be burdened with, and WE ARE trying to prevent collateral damage to
the community.

When you oversimplify complex issues, you nothing to advance the
community discussion. Even oversimplifying the concept of "growth" is
harmful to the public discussion because growth means different
things to different people. You are a really, really bright guy, and
you could join the public discussion instead of taking pot shots at
those who ARE at the table. Why don't you come to the table? These
issues are even more compelling when you are in possession of actual
facts.

I remain in your service, and always willing to deal with the facts.

Margaret Radford

I originally sent this on 9/2/2002:

I just sent this letter to the Gazette, but doubt they'll devote this
much column space to a view that doesn't sell more papers.  We
average citizens need you to know how we feel.  It's not exactly
complimentary of your track record, but I'm not going to edit it for
your  consumption.  This is the unvarnished truth.  Please step up to
this challenge and think about what you'd like Colorado Springs to
look like in 20 years.  San Jose?  Please don't sell this city's soul
to enrich a few!

If just one bad year of drought can put us in this dire position, we
obviously do NOT have adequate water for our current population.
City Council's response to the crisis is biased toward business
(surprise!), at the expense of the welfare of everyday citizens.
Business leaders appeal not to restrict new water taps for fear of
losing jobs and tax dollars.  Applying this logic, we should all keep
smoking in order to avoid loss of jobs in the tobacco industry!

Tourist dollars at The Broadmoor ARE more important than my lawn, as
are landscape and construction jobs.  But I do NOT place these above
my need to have drinking water for the next 30 years (and at a
reasonable price).  With each new tap, we promise years of water to
yet another family.  With each sod permit, conserving a scarce
resource takes a backseat to commerce.  And we still romance
businesses and jobs from other states, with the inherent promise to
provide water  from where, and at what cost?

Let's face the fact we're already bumping up against the limits of a
critical resource.  The entire West is fighting over water.  It's not
reasonable to expect we can import more and more water as time goes
on.  Any future water we gain will come from someone else's back
yard.  If we're lucky enough to find someone who will sell their
water to us, that water will come at a high price.

I'll give up my green grass; will big business give up growth?  Call
or write your councilmember and county commissioner.  Only
overwhelming voter sentiment can give them the backbone to stand up
to the big money in this town and do the hard work -- scaling back
water use for the long-term.  That includes an end to promising water
we don't have.  If that means a few construction workers leave town
and a few more turn to remodeling, so be it. Times change, and we
must change along with them.

I've just started an e-mail discussion group to begin educating
myself and our community about growth and water issues in C.
Springs.  The group's page has files and links you may find
interesting.  I haven't invited anyone to join the discussion yet,
but feel free to start the ball rolling at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nomoregrowth/

Dave Gardner

You're no doubt reading this because you're concerned about quality
of life in Colorado Springs.  It was once an absolutely gorgeous,
charming village where we could truly enjoy the great outdoors.
We've taken her for granted and packed more and more people in,
mostly in the interest of money -- and in the process clogged the
roadways, fouled the air, and used up most the water here and
elsewhere.  It's still a decent place, and I started this group in
the hope it's not too late for us to take back our town and avoid
turning it into the next Southern California.

I'm just beginning the process, so help me, please, and accompany me
on this journey.  If you're interested in learning more about growth
issues, click on "Links" in the menu at the left.  Also click
on "Files" to find some interesting information and opinions.

Personally, I don't think any of us will be happier with the quality
of life in C. Springs ten years from now.  If we could, we'd stop
right here at a half-million people.  We don't have the water, the
air, the space, or the money for roads the next half-million people
will require.  Realistically, we may have no choice but to continue
growing, but perhaps we can slow down and do it much more
intelligently.

Keep coming back to learn, share what you know, and become involved.
Our voice needs to be as loud or louder than the campaign
contribution checks of the Housing and Building Association.

Dave Gardner