Saving the world is expensive
Regarding Stacy Standley’s Jan. 22 letter: Let me get this straight.
A City Council 40 years ago filed conditional water claims that could be exploited only by despoiling two irreplacable wilderness areas. For 40 years no City Council took any concrete steps to cost out the project, to seek approval of the President of the United States (yes, it would require the President’s approval), or even to determine feasibility (including geological evaluation). The current City Council acts sensibly (perhaps a first); It decides not to despoil the wilderness. It takes some positive steps (which Mr. Standley failed to do) to secure a hedge against water shortages by pursuing storage where wilderness won’t be harmed.
Mr. Standley complains it’ll be expensive. Of course it’ll be expensive. But Mr. Standley wouldn’t know whether it’s more or less expensive than his impractical dams because he never costed out those projects. Windmills and solar panels are expensive, too, not to mention the impossible cost of developing anything in Aspen. Aspen’s tree huggers (there, I said it) never have shrunk from over-spending to save the world. Why start now?