Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'"-'" .. 'D~i'i'l)f;'-i!~~trrmgv <br />Homestake <br />Water Plans <br />Scru tinrzed <br /> <br />House Subcomritittee <br />Plans Hearing in Vail <br /> <br />By JACK cox <br />DenverPo&tStatfWriter <br /> <br />A proposed water-dJ.version project <br />that has aroused strong opposition on <br />Colorado's Western Slope but attracted <br />litUe noUce on the Front Range will <br />come under congressional scrutiny Fr1- <br />day at a House subcommittee hearing in <br />Vall, <br />The $100 mUliOD project., pIaimed by <br />the fast-growing dUes of Colorado <br />Springs and Aurora, would capture <br />spring rUnoff from four creeks In the <br />Holy Cross Wilderness Area and send <br />the water lhrough tunnels into the exist. <br />ing f10rnestake Reservoir on the south- <br />east side of Ole area. <br />The water then would be routed <br />through an extsting tunnel under the <br />Continental Divide, down the Arkansas <br />River and across- South Park into <br />foolhllls reservoirs supplying the two <br />ciUes. <br />Critics of the plan, known as the <br />Homestake II Project. contend that it <br />would damage hundreds of acres of wet- <br />lands and dozens of spectacular water- <br />falls in the wtIderness, a 2O().square-mlle <br />preserve centered on the famed Mount <br />of the 1I01y Cross in the White River Na- <br />t ..lional Forest about 10 miles south of <br />I. Vall <br />_J The opponents argue that the dties <br />hould explore alternatives that <br />ouldo't afrect the wilderness, such as <br />ater conservation, wel.ls on the plains <br />or a downstream reservoir and water <br />exchange with Denver. <br />Proponents maintain that the diver. <br /> <br /> <br />Cross <br /> <br />Mount of the Holy Cross <br />.t. <br /> <br />Mount of the <br />Holy Cross <br /> <br />, <br />/ <br />, <br />Existing Pipeline.... <br />Homestake Reservoir <br /> <br />sion dams would disturb only six acres <br />of land and have minimal effect down. <br />stream. They say the project would be <br />merely an expansion of a collection sys- <br />tem bum in the mld.I960s. <br />The bearing, scheduled to start at 10 <br />a.m. Ftiday in the van Town Counell <br />chambers, wID be led by Rep. John <br />SelberUng, O.()hjo, chalnnan of the <br />. 1I0use Interior Subcommittee on Public <br />Lands. It was arranged by Rep. Ray Ko- <br />govsek, O.Colo., a committee member <br />whose congressional district now in- <br />cludes the Western Slope and who said <br />his position has changed from support of <br /> <br />lIomestake II to opposition. <br />The subcommittee is expected to dis- <br />cuss whether the U.S. Forest Sen1ce <br />has prepared an adequate enVironmen. <br />tal impact statement involving the <br />project and whether the federal govern- <br />ment could call a halt to the develop- <br />ment now without lnfrtngl.ng on the legal <br />rights of the two cities. <br />Normally, such a project would not be <br />allowed in a wilderness area. But a com. <br />promise worked out in' 1980 as part of <br />the Colorado Wilderness Act gave Auro- <br />ra and Colorado Sprtngs special permJ&. <br />sion to proceed with the orated. p,..p. <br /> <br />o Diversion Dam <br /> <br />-New Tunnel <br />III New Pipeline <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Minturn <br /> <br />Redcliff <br /> <br /> <br />U,S, 24 <br /> <br /> <br />The o.nver PolItI Connie Prlnelow <br /> <br />sumably, it would take a separate act of <br />Congress to revoke that exemption. <br /> <br />The lnlUaJ Forest Service study of the <br />project. which came out last May, was <br />roundly crlUcl1.ed in June at a hearing in <br />Minturn attended by more than 400 resi. <br />dents of nearby mountain communities. <br /> <br />Since then, the opponents have been <br />pushing for a re-evaluallon of the <br />project, especially in view of re-cent <br /> <br />Please S_ W.6TFA "'n 11I:_11 <br />