Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />· Union ParkJs multi-purpose revenues and unprecedented 10 to 1 benefit-cost expectations <br />can be, used by its cooperating owner..developers to decrease thejr near and fong...term <br />water user fees. Most Cororado water providerst including Aurora and Colorado.Springs, <br />are projecting major water rate increases to pay for thejr obsolete water development <br />proposals; <br /> <br />· Union Park's new water supplies and flexible hjgh storage wiH increase regional stream <br />flows during droughtsf Its owner-developers can avoid costly permjtting conflicts and delays <br />from multitudes of opposers. This;s especiaUy true when considering farmert <br />environmental, West Slope. NebraskaJ and Kansas opposerst who rightfuHy object to single <br />purpose water projects that further deplete river flows during droughts; <br /> <br />· Increased urban return flows from Unjon Park's new water supplies will automatically <br />provide a free bonanza for Western endangered species and farmers4 Additional high <br />reservojrs can eventualJy replace' marginal Western river dams that are filling with siltr <br />causing excessive evaporation and polJution, and harming river environments; <br /> <br />· Union Park's high storage can help the Bureau of Reclamation solve its existing Taylor Park <br />and .Pueblo Dam safety problems. Bureau studies indicate these facilities would suffer <br />catastrophic failures under Maximum Probable Frood (MPF) conditions; C <br /> <br />· EPA vetoed Denver1s proposed Two Forks Dam, prjmarily because Colorado's "overlookedJJ <br />Gunnison entitlements and more productive Union Park high storage site were improperly <br />screened from the environmental studies_ The NationaJ Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) <br />specifically requires "economic and environmental comparisons of aJJ reasonable <br />atternatives". The Inferior Aurora and Colorado' Springs deveJopment pJans wH' surery not <br />pass EPAts NEPA test; <br /> <br />· Private and government engineers generally agree that Unjon Park has major environmentar <br />and economic advantages for both sJopes. HoweverJ they have been inhibited from <br />speaking out since Two Forks1 because of inappropriate opposition from Colorado's <br />Directors of Natural Resources. CDNRts unreaHstic Big Straw Study is another misgujded <br />political proy to _ delay consideration of Union Park. <br /> <br />In view of these factsJ it wourd be irresponsjble for Aurora, Colorado Springs, and others to <br />proceed with thejr inferior water deveJopment proposals. Aurora and Colorado Springs have a <br />golden leadership opportunity to heJp Cororado break its destructive water poHcy gridJock. <br />Superior ideas urtimately prevail. Your citizens deserve the superior Union Park solution. <br /> <br />It:~ <br /> <br />Dave Miller, President <br /> <br />ene's: News articles on Colorado's confUcted Gunnison transmountain policies. <br />Georogic Summary on Union Park Dam site, and Reservoir Cost Comparjsons4 <br /> <br />cc: Potential Unjon Park participan'ts, Colorado regislators and Congressional Delegation, <br />Governor Owens and Western Governors, U.S~ Departments of Interior, Agricurturel and <br />Energy, EPA, Congressional Resource Committees, the White House~ and selected city~ <br />county, agricufture~ business, engineer, environmental, recreation, voter and media entities <br />and associations4 - <br />