Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sandy: We had two days of straight meetings, that's hard to do, did a tremendous job. Got to <br />keep these topics on the front of their minds. I thought it was a good two days. <br /> <br />McAuliffe: I did too, hard work. <br /> <br />Rick: On the seismic study, apparently some fault was not part of an earlier examination, and its <br />relationship to Chatfield, the whole study could take the worse turn that they would draw <br />conclusion that we could not store the AF for additional storage because of this fault. Seismic <br />study will determine if there is a fatal flaw. Other Fatal Flaw was flood control, can you store <br />that much, yes you can, doesn't diminish use of Chatfield as flood control unit. Want Corps to <br />come to their conclusion that this isn't a fatal flaw. I don't want anyone to be surprised. It needs <br />to be a priority with the Corps. They have $60K to do these studies, they say they need $1 OOK, <br />we need the Corps to do this study. <br /> <br />Sandy: I know they are doing dam safety analysis at Cherry Creek, it's the same fault system as <br />Chatfield. They were going to be issuing an RFP for Cherry Creek to do the ground fault study. <br /> <br />Rick: Seismic needs to be high priority with us on all points. If they have money problems, <br />money come out of Chatfield project, could help move this forward and come to conclusions and <br />remove this cloud. <br /> <br />Vaughn: GeoSurvey did the original seismic survey. <br /> <br />Sandy: I know Omaha district met with GeoSurvey about Cherry Creek. <br /> <br />Rick: Cost of storage. $40 million, $20 million, $40 million, if we could do something to save <br />$20 million it's fine. $20 million pulled out of the bill. Steve Coombs still reviewing the <br />Chatfield project, help us make this go faster...good news he's still involved. Conversation to <br />look at hydrology and rational lowering cost of storage based on the hydrology. Got Denver <br />Water Chatfield modeling, in 1 of 6 years there was no storage water in Chatfield... Steve said in <br />DC that when you can't put water in Chatfield, could reduce the cost of storage, based on that <br />approach. But said come in and propose anything you want to try and reduce cost. Base on <br />yield? Could reduce 2/3 of the cost. Could probably sell 1/6 but not 2/3. Too greedy. Some <br />other fraction? Some other analysis? Steve said to get creative and come to me. We all need to <br />think about this. 1/6 of $20 million, could be a cost savings of millions. Whole lot of years <br />where you get the full amount, some years you don't. Only years you get absolutely zero <br />counted towards the 1/6th. We should get together and figure out what we could propose. It will <br />be a unique thing. He would have to somehow make this thing saleable to his superiors who <br />would be judging this. <br /> <br />Shane: Long term average 7,000 AF? Is this a water rights issue or flooding? It's a Colorado <br />water rights issue. <br /> <br />This document represents the personal staff notes of Susan Maul and are not to be considered a formal record of <br />this meeting. <br /> <br />9 <br />