WSP10730 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I..Rock Mollnta4nNe'lls. Sun.~~6.1982.Den~ef,CoIo, .) .-'Y"':" . t Water experts study tra.de plan . Lamm excited, but Aurora, Springs critical - '- . '1 ... By BURT nUBBARD N....S~f( f Water ex~rts throughout Colorado are considermg a prop'?sed water trade that its hackers sar will meet the future n~ds of the stale s three largest cities at a low cost and, at the same time, eliminate two controversial transmoun. tain projects. But the proposal, hailed by Gov. Rich- ard D. Lamm as "so exciting it takes my breath away." ha! drawn fire from the cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs, whose approval Is necessary to make it work. . The plan, called the Green Mountain Exchange. was developed by the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District and presented to local government leaders in April. It proposes lrading billions of gallons of water and sever..l reservoirs between the Denver Water Board, Colorado Springs, Aurora, the U.s. BUreau of Rec- lamation and the Vail water district. Here's how it would work. The water board, in partnership with Aurora and Colorado Springs, would construct a 230,000 acre-foot reservoir, to be caIled Wolcott Reservoir, east of where the Eagle and Colorado rivers merge near Eagle. An acre foot equals .325,851 gallons of water. The three cities would then swap Wol- cott Reservoir to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for its Green Mountain Reservoir on the Blue River and con- struct a 19-mile pipeline between the Green Mountain facility and the water board's Dillon Reservoir. Water from the 153,000 acre-foot Green Mountain Reservoir would be pumped to Dillon and from there trans- ported through the Roberts .Tunnel across the mountains to Denver and Au- rora. The Wolcott Reservoir would be free to release water down the Eagle River to Western Slope areas now served by the Grecn Mountain Reservoir. ... At the same time, Aurora and Colora~ do Springs would ab.1ndon plans for their 'joint $115 million Homestake II water projct"t, which involves digging an II-mile tunnel to divert water from the Cross Creek area on the West Slope to the two cities. Colorado Springs would take over all the water being diverted through the Homestake I project that is shared by it and Aurora. The water OO<lnl, in turn, would can- cel its controversial $437 mlllion system to collect water from the Eagle and Piney rivers in the E;!gle's Nest Wilder- ness on the Western Slope and divert it to the Front Ranl':e. The cost of the project is estimated at $150 million. But backers of the plan say it will save Aurora and Colorado Springs at least $63 million over a 20-year peri- od and the water board $234 million over 20 years for the same amount of water. Edmund Drager Jr., president of the Vail water district, said the plan started out last year as a way to meet Vail's water needs and ballooned six months later to a !itatewide water system. The Vail district, which serves up to 25,000 people during the ski season, is pushing the plan because, on the one hand, residents don't want to Io....e water from the Gore Creek flowing through the valley, said Drager. The water board's Eagle-Piney pro. ject would divert water from the creek before it reached Vail. "We have a beautiful creek flowing through Vail and we don't want to lose it," said Drager. On the other hand, Drager said the Vail area sees the plan-as .a way 10 \ -- -.'.-_ '1,,- I I I . I I I . I '- o DI~i.ON , I RED '-< 0 D' ~ '_ . CLIFF /No th fork , r ,S.~.I. '> __ ___ _" O"eR. avv - , Te"mlle Creek .' I, . ) 0 LEADVILLE ~ , ,. /... 0" I~ ~ I~ .... I, IQ '. , , -- --, I ,..., I~ I~ ,.. I~ , - ,.. ,~ '0 'u , , - , , , I , , , ~-/ " - - -- " " .iA . ,. N KREMMLlNG I , I I , I I I . . /' I I . VAIL GLENWOOD SPRINGS ,. Proposed Wolcott Reservoir 2. U.S. Bureau of Reclam. arion's GrHrI Mountain R~r. - va" 3. ~nver Water Deportment's Dillon Reservoir ....-_ I -----.... ...._\ ~--------- COLORADO SPRINGS 4. Aurora's Spinney Mountain Reservoir 5. Homestake Reservoir and hJnnel-pi~/ine system, jointly owned by Aurora and Colorado Springs ~\~.r 6. Denver Water [N:partment's proposed Two Forles Reservoir ...............- .~~ R - -- -. - - - - - (We have a and we don't beautiful creek flowing want to lose it,' through Vail Edmund Drager Jr. preserve two wilderness areas and still provide everyone with water. Part of the Homestake project would be built in the Holy Cross Wilderness area and the Eagle-Piney system would intrude on the Eagle Nest's Wilderness area. Drager also said the Wolcott Reser. voir envisioned under the Vail plan .....ould capture 230,000 acre-feet of wa- ter that now flows out of the state into Arizona and California. Reaction to the plan has ranged from excitement to vehement opposition. "There is a possibility - and that's all it is, a possibility - of a water manage. ment system that is so exciting that it takes my breath away," Lamm said last month. The [)(>nver Water Board, one of the key players, has been taking a wait-and- see attitude. "It offers some potential," said Wil- liam Miller, manager of the Water De- partment. "It's a concept that we have looked at for a long time." But Miller said the Water Department is not ready to jump into it until more study has been done. He said the department has two con- cerns about the project. Under federal law, the bureau cannot -I divert water from the Green Mountain Reservoir to the Front Range, he said. A U.S. Senate resolution permitting diVer- sion would be needed before the trade could be completed. Miller said he also is concerned about the cost of electricity to pump water from Green Mountain uphill to Dillon Reservoir. Denver's water system Is based on a gravitational flow of water that eliminates the high electricial costs associated with pumping. Colorado Springs and Aurora are dead set against the water trade. "Our position is one of opposition to the plan as proposed as an alternative to Homestake II," said Harold Miskel, Col- orado Springs water official and chair- man of the committee overseeing the project with Aurora. "The water trade alternative would end up costing us twice as much over the long run in operating and mainte- nance cost," said Mlskel. "This Idea is nothing ne..... a5 far as Colorado Springs and Aurora are_ concerned. We studit'd alt('rnatives Hke this in the past and dismissed them." R ." ': . , ~ BOULDER DENVER 25 , ... PUEBLO '""- say the water trade will cause more environmental problems than their Ho. mestake II proJect. The Homestake project will disturb only six acres of wilderness, while the ; Vail plan will disrupt 19 miles of prop- ~ erty between the two reservoirs plus t: cause seVE'Te dust and noise problem$ from trucks transporting J'ipe from Denver, said Tom Griswol , engineer for Aurora. Griswold said he also fears that the water board wouldn't get around to building the reservoir and pipeline for another 20 years, while Aurora will need the water by 1990. Griswold said a meeting has been ar- ranged with f..1mm to "point out the shortfalls" of the plan. Finally, neither city likes the ide.1 of cooperating with the water board_ "A major requirement of the water trade alternative would be cooperation between the various .....at('r agencies in- volved," the cW.s said in their written critique of the plan. "Such cooperation has not been common in the past." y But Drager rem.lins optimistic. "Maybe it will be like trying to hold a world disarmament ronfcH'nce and try- ing to gel all the parties logcther," he said. "If we don't trust each other, who do we trust? "As far-reaching as this thing 13, It is r('ally important 10 ov('rC'ome the ohsta- Besides the. legal problems and pump-. ._.c1~, .We all cllre about the future of ing costs, officials from the t.....o cities- - water in Colorado" -- - ~ /??<1>Jbc..z'; ~ eo""",.,.., 0") l:-e ..-Jo/'e. -