Not so fast, say Aspen officials, who are arguing today that the data is flawed.

From the Denver Post report:

Waterhoggers?

Colorado Front Range residents are using less water, but some parts of the Western Slope have seen per capita water use explode in the past decade, according to a new state study…

Residents of Pitkin County, home of Aspen, used 1,851 gallons per person each day, the data show, as Elbert County folks used 111 gallons each.

That reported use is more than 10 times the national average of 179 gallons, and nearly eight times the state average of 240 gallons.

But in an Aspen Daily News story today, reporter Catherine Lutz noted that the Denver Post never indicated in its story that the report is still a draft:

[The Colorado Water Conservation Board’s] report, however, is a draft, and staffers are working on a number of inconsistencies they’ve been alerted to since it came out in June, said CWCB’s Eric Hecox, section chief of the water supply planning division…

The Pitkin County data was flagged for follow up, he said, because it was assumed there had to be some inconsistencies on how either the total water delivery or total population was calculated. For example, the population of Aspen’s water service area had somehow decreased by 10,000-15,000 people, Hecox said. And there are many communities in Colorado, like Aspen, that have high second-home owner and tourist populations that have to be factored in.

Meanwhile, wrote Lutz, the story of Aspen’s excessive consumption was picked up by local radio stations KAJX and KSNO—as well as 9News.com and The Associated Press.

County Commissioner Rachel Richards, who sits on several water boards, bemoaned the bad—and potentially inaccurate—press:

Richards said the reporting of the study could “take on a life of its own,” reinforcing the stereotype that the Western Slope uses water heavily and potentially influencing things like discussions over trans-basin diversions.

“I’m personally very concerned about reading this because Aspen has a great story to tell about the conversation measures it has put in in the last decade,” she said.

That includes extensive work on leak detection and repair, and tiered water rates that charge more for more water use. The rate system was revised in 2005 and again in 2006, and resulted in a 22 percent reduction in annual water usage by Aspen water customers, according to the city water department’s Web page.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Marilyn Marks

This year, for the first time, Aspen held an election using a new electronic voting system called Instant Runoff Voting. The intent was to put an end to costly and time-consuming runoff elections:

The council adopted IRV in response to a mandate by the majority of Aspen residents, who voted in November 2007 to eliminate runoff elections, which had required a June election if council candidates didn’t receive 45 percent plus one, and if the mayor didn’t get 50 percent, plus one of the vote in the May election.

In the new system, voters ranked candidates (in a style reminiscent of high-school crush lists) from favorite to least-favorite. An electronic system determined the winners.

But not everyone trusts the new system.

Last month, according to The Aspen Times, losing mayoral candidate Marilyn Marks filed a lawsuit against the city to force it to publicly release the ballot images from the election.

The city is fighting that lawsuit:

Earlier this month the city filed a motion to dismiss Marks’ lawsuit, arguing several points, including that people have a right to a secret ballot under the city’s home rule charter. [City attorney John] Worcester said some voters’ identities could be revealed because of unique or unintentional markings on the ballots in question.

Meanwhile, Councilman Jack Johnson made an open records request for any emails between Marks and the election commission, writes the Aspen Daily News.

Many of the e-mails between Marks and Election Commission member [Elizabeth] Milias include disparaging remarks about city staff and council, and there is a clear intent on Marks’ part to influence the agenda of the election commission. Certain e-mails, which don’t include [City Clerk Kathryn] Koch, show Milias and [Election Commission member Chris] Bryan discussing the agenda for an election commission meeting and plotting their strategies going forward.

The emails, says Johnson, show Marks lobbying a majority of the election commission and thus violate the open meetings rule— since they were done privately. Johnson has posted the emails here.

But Marks says she hasn’t done anything wrong:

“I think the election commission ought to be a body that a citizen can petition,” she said. “Not only am I denying [wrongdoing], I’m proud of how I did it … I would have advocated to any board.”

The city attorney’s office plans to provide City Council with an opinion about a possible open meetings law violation in an executive session today.

But once that’s decided, the city will have to decide what to do about its failure to follow its own charter in appointing the commission. Commission members were appointed in the wrong month—and never re-appointed in the correct month.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.