Chapter 9 Part I Mediating Large Disputes

1
Chapter 9 Part IMediating Large Disputes

• Case Study Foothills Water Treatment Project
• Stephanie Lang
• 6/19/07

2
Significance of the Case

• Large, complex dispute involving many different
  parties
  
• Tests the proposition that some environmental
  disputes are too complex to be negotiated
  
• Mediation was attempted twice one attempt was
  successful, the other was not.

3
Background What is it?

• Raw water treatment facility
• Designed, owned and operated by the Denver Water
  Board (DWB)
  
• Includes a concrete diversion dam and reservoir
  on the South Platte River (25 mi SW of Denver)
  linked by a tunnel
  
• 490 acres of undeveloped grassland

4
Background What is it?

• By design, the reservoir would contain a
  hydroelectric turbine that would create much more
  power than it would need to operate
  
• Expand Denvers treatment facilities, but not raw
  water supply system
  
• If the new system exceeds 125 mgd, new water
  supplies from the west slope would be needed

5
Timeline

• 1952 DWB begins studies of the project
  additional capacity needed by 1977
  
• 1967 Obtained Federal Rights of Way (some
  Federal land is used)
  
• 1972 Voters asked for bond to increase capacity
  -- rejected

• 1973 Issue put to voters again, but this time
  with large advertising campaign and does not
  specifically mention Foothills project --
  approved
• 1974 Begins construction process
• 1974-1979 2 lawsuits, 4 environmental impact
  statements (EIS) and millions of dollars
  
• 1979 Construction begins

6
Proponents

• DWB
• Army Corps of Engineers
• Governors Office
• Colorado Department of Health
• Citizens had voted for bond
• Water for Colorado
• Several local politicians

7
Why?

• Provide water for growing communities
• Against further water rationing
• High Quality drinking water
• Technically best solution for providing water for
  growing area
  

8
Opponents

• Various Environmental Groups
• EPA
• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
• United States Forest Service (USFS)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
• Local politicians

9
Why?

• Alters the ecology of the region
• Promotes urban sprawl and therefore numerous
  other environmental problems
  
• Alternative solutions had not been thoroughly
  investigated
  

10
Obstacles to Mediation

• Polarization
• DWBs unwillingness to compromise
• Personal animosity
• Scope and complexity of the dispute

11
Mediation 1st Attempt

• Congresswoman Schroeder suggested mediation early
  on, but the notion was rejected
  
• She was an environmentalist and was assumed to be
  anti-Foothills
  
• Immediately publicized the idea
• Agreeing to mediation appeared to mean you were
  siding with Schroeder
  
• Little was known about the Office of
  Environmental Mediation
  
• The idea was introduced to early in the dispute
• The DWB had no reason to enter into mediation

12
404 Permit Dispute

• EPAs main leverage they could veto the 404
  Permit
  
• Delay costed DWB 630,000/month that construction
  was not started
  
• Both sides feared court decision
• Carter administration against water development
• Bad publicity for the EPA and court decisions are
  always unpredictable

13
404 Permit Dispute

• Under public pressure, the EPA announces that it
  will not block construction, but would attach
  stipulations
  
• Held public hearing on both east and west slope
• Water conservation
• Impact mitigation
• Recommended that the Corps reject the 404 permit

14
Mediation 2nd Attempt

• Tim Wirth (congressional representative)
  initiated mediation
  
• Timing was better (neither side was certain of a
  satisfactory victory)
  
• Perceived as pro-Foothills, so DWB was more
  likely to participate
  
• Started with private conversations
• Personal relationship with EPA
• As mediation became public, it became more
  difficult to withdraw without damaging public
  perception

15
Mediation 2nd Attempt

• Learned that the EPA wanted alternative solutions
  and environmental impacts were investigated
  
• Corps would complete a study
• EPA not happy about this choice, but realized
  that they were the most qualified to complete
  this type of study
  
• DWB assumed the Corps would agree with them

16
Role of the Corps

• Complete the alternative and environmental impact
  study
  
• EPA and DWB were both involved in the design of
  the study
  
• Gave the study more legitimacy

17
Role of the Public

• EPA favored a strong public presence
• The Corps wished to keep the public out of the
  process until its study was complete and reviewed
  by both sides
  

18
Results of the Study

• Need for the Plant
• Treatment capacity will be exceeded in 1980
• With water conservation efforts 1995
• With some economic and environmental costs
• Plant Impacts
• No relationship between water supply and sprawl

19
Alternatives

• Strontia Dam (original proposal)
• Built quickly
• Hydroelectric generator
• Provide water for Aurora
• Lower operating costs

• Canyon Mouth Dam (best alternative)
• More time to design/build
• Section of the canyon has already been impacted
• Aurora would have to build its own dam
• Lower construction costs
• Higher operating costs

20
Conclusion of the Study

• EPA still disagreed with the assessment of the
  viability of conservation as an alternative
  
• EPA also disagreed with the lack of emphasis on
  the environmental impacts
  
• DWB refused to agree to the Canyon Mouth site
  because of time and operating costs