|
<br />:,Foothi//s Ushered New
<br />Adversaries 'n~o O/dDispuf~s
<br />
<br />
<br />I Continued from page 31. Even the EPA's Merson has described -
<br />i whIch serveS abOut two,thirds of the the dam's engineering plans as "eIe-
<br />lti gant." .
<br />Denver area's POPa a on. .
<br />; 'lbe city has tlftee treatment plants I The water would be carried from the
<br />now-Kassler, Marston and Moffat-bullt I I dam through a tunoell0.5 feet in diame-j
<br />in 1890, 1925 and 1937, but substantially te~ to a treatment plant more than three
<br />updated. .' nules away. A buried la-mile coDdult is
<br />Many area residents andcommuruty,of- p~posed to take the water to the existing
<br />flcials pride themselves OD the "green Highlands Reservoir and pump station,
<br />oasis" those plants have helped to create t and then on to DeDver-area water users. i
<br />along the South Platte Valley, just nnrth THE STRONTIA Springs site has been
<br />0/ the proposed Foothills site. I hailed by experts hired by the Water
<br />The stretches of lawn and flower beds Board as .~e only feasible proposal wben I
<br />spread throughout the metropolitan area I~ storage, Icmg and sedimentation prol>-
<br />also help cleanse the alr and 'cool hot lems are considered.
<br />sununer days, Foothills supporters point Opponents, including the EP A, have
<br />out. rejected that contention, They say Foot-
<br />THAT GREENERY normally wouldn't hills' first treatment phase, and perhaps
<br />exist in the semi-arid Wes!. others, can he supplied with water by aI,
<br />Trans-mountain d i v e r s j 0 !1projects, ternatives to Strongtia. Springs,
<br />which started the Wes!ern:Slope water .1 Qf!$in conservation measures-includ.
<br />flow to the Front Range In 1930; have in g lain-watedng restrictions-would
<br />helped make all the greenery possihle., sav~ treated water and lessen the need tq
<br />Existing diversion projects would fur-I ....-
<br />Dish water to Foothills, which is designed
<br />to be built in four phases, each allowing
<br />125 million gallons of water to be treated expand Foothills, the. EP A says. , ,
<br />each day. . ~ A chief reason the. Water Board op-I
<br />Through the first two phases, no more poses moving the site is that Strontia \
<br />Western-Slope water would be needed, the Springs was designed to accommodate
<br />Water Board says. But new diversion I the ultimate 500-million-gallon plant and
<br />projects may be necessary for the third I I to fit plans for future water projects,
<br />phase and definitely for the fourth. ,such as the Two Forks Dam.
<br />'THE PROSPECTS of new diversion THE TWO FORKS plans, shelved for
<br />projects have helped rally Foothills oppo- ,now, call 'fot' creation of a 19-mile-long I
<br />nents, who include Western Slope develop- reservoir upstream from Foothills, near
<br />ers, environmentalists and citizen groups. ~the South Platte's' North Fork,
<br />Foothills would have four basic compo. I The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation would
<br />nents: a dam and reservoir, tunnel, treat. be involved with that project, but Foot-
<br />ment plant and conduit. !hills bas been designed. to. .re-regu.l.~tel
<br />The concrete dam would be 243 feet 'TwaForks' flow, Not deslgmng Foothills
<br />high, 31 feet thick at the bare lInd WI that way would make little sense if the
<br />feet long, 'Waler Board is to provide for growth, the
<br />It would block waters of the South 'Denver Water Board argues. ,
<br />Platte and its north fork, and trans.molDl' The Denver Water Department, con.
<br />tain water stored in Dillon Reservoir, trolled by the Water Board, has main-
<br />then hrought through Roherts Tunnel inta tained the Strontia Springs dam was'
<br />the Platte. designed so it could stand alone. I
<br />THE WATERS would create a l.7.mi!e- Two Forks didn't influence the dam's
<br />long reservoir up the nine-mile Waterlon height, Blll M't1ler, depa~ent .direct~>r I
<br />Canyon. The canyon was frequented by for administration and public afflllrs, SOld
<br />hikers, cyclists, fishermen and other na- last week.
<br />ture-lovers hefore its closure by the "The dam Is needed at that height (243
<br />Water Board last month. feet) to create storage, for the sedimenta-
<br />Waterton canyon, borne of a wide varl- tion and the icing," Ml1ler said,
<br />ety of wildlife, is virtually undeveloped The EPA, however, concluded Two
<br />and is prized in part because of its llilUSU' Forks did influence the dam size and
<br />al closeness to a major metropolitan point to documents that include the Water
<br />area. Board's 1974 environmental assessment of
<br />In simplest terms, the dam and reser- Foothills,
<br />voir are designed so that sediment settles 'lbe 254-page report refers ta an alter-
<br />on the bottom, ice collects at the top, and note proposal of a a lower dam only 136
<br />water for treatment is removed toward feet higb at the Strontia Springs site.
<br />the middle.
<br />
<br />36 *THE DENVER POST
<br />
<br />Sun., Juno II, 1978
<br />
<br />"THIS STRUCTURE would be designed
<br />, as the fll"St phase of a potential two-stage
<br />!. dam," the report said "It could eventual-
<br />ly serve as a regulating dam for the
<br />,Bureau of Reclamation's flood control
<br />I! project at Two Forks.
<br />; "In about IS years, the water depart- ~
<br />'ment's dam could be elevated to 238 feet
<br />in height to serve this purpose," the
<br />I report said.
<br />The department later eliminated the
<br />lower-dam alternative, along with three
<br />other alternatives to the Strontia Springs
<br />site. li
<br />But a prime consideration In judging
<br />the alternatives was the ultimate expan_
<br />sion the Water Board desired to serve the ,
<br />I treatment plant, and Stnmtia Springs best
<br />fit those designs, the department engi-
<br />neers and their consultants decided.
<br />COMPLICATING THE FooIhills debate
<br />.bave been warnings that unless the proj-
<br />ect is built, Denver-area residents' life-
<br />styles would be altered dramatically.
<br />The basis for those warnings COlDe
<br />partly from environmental stmies of,
<br />Foothills conducted by the Bureau of
<br />Land Management before the rights-<lf-
<br />way decisions were made.
<br />A draft study.!ast year contained sever-
<br />al refere.nces,to lifestyles.
<br />'For instance;theland bureau reported
<br />the praject "woufd also',provide for ade-
<br />quate municipal and industrial water In
<br />the DenVer metro area until sometime I
<br />afte.r 2001, positively impacting that area1
<br />by maintaining existing lifestyles!'
<br />sUCH STATEMENTS prompted this
<br />I headline in The Denver Post last July: I
<br />"Impact Statement on Foothills Asserts
<br />Lifestyles at Stake."
<br />The land hureau later was pressed to
<br />explain what it meant hy lifestyles. The
<br />bureau said it was referring to a hori.
<br />culture, not the nwnber of showers taken
<br />each week or how much drinking water is
<br />available.
<br />The bureau concluded that Foothills'
<br />principal purpose is to allow Water Board
<br />customers to water lawns and gardens
<br />~
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />00674
<br />
|