SouthPlatteComments07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

negotiate long-term water service agreements with Union Park type participants on both sides of the Divide. The Bureau knows that Union Park's additionaf high storage for Aspinall water rights wilJ greatly increase clean water, power, and environmental benefits throughout Colorado ,and the Southwestern Region, including the Upper Gunnison Basin of origin. 7~ Locat State, and federal involvement with Union Park oversight NEeD first offered to seH its 1982 Union Park hydropower rights and statewide drought protection project to CoJorado SpringsJ Aurora, Denver, City of Gunnison and the Colorado Water Resource~ and Power Deveropment Authority (CWRPDA) during 1986. Colorado Springs and Aurora declined to consider Union Park~ because it competed with their Homestake II and CoHegate Range proposalsJ whrch do not include compensatory storage for the west slope~ Denver also declined I because of a relentless determination to deverop excessive Two Forks rights, which overdeprete Colorado River Mainstream trjbutarfes. The City of Gunnison wisely contracted for a small interest in Union Park, because of major water and power benefits. CWRPDA recognized Union Park's statewide potentjal, but voted to first study the concept in jts Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study of transr(lountain storage alternatives~ UnfortunateJYr CWRPDA's harf completed study was abruptly terminated by ColoradoJs Director of Natural Resources, without any public expranation or justjfication. As a result, the Bureau had to reallocate one mHlion dollars in its FY 1990 budget, that was programmed to help Colorado develop its grow.ing Gunnison Basin runoff losses to California. fn spite of this setback, the Bureau did provide varuable cost estimates for Union Park and several other Gunnison transmountain arternatives. State officials have curiously refused to evaluate the Bureau's cost data and available Union Park reconnaissance studies by Ebascoj Black and Veatcht and WRC Engineering. . 8. Union Park vs Two Forks During the Two Forks EIS, Corps of Engineers computer studies confirmed that 60,000 acre-feet from Union Park could increase the safe annual yieJd of DenverJs existing reservoirs by 111 JOOO acre-feet. Union Park's overall water and power benefits for multiple basins were never quantified. Regrettably, Union Park was subsequently dropped form the Two Forks EJS for unjustified I'institutionar reasons". EPA subsequently vetoed Two Forks, because "superior alternatives were improperly screened from the detaifed environmental studiestJ. Chips Barry (CoJorado's Naturar Resources Director) and Dave MHJer (NEeD President) were the only outsiders invited to the environmental community's Two Forks Victory Party. Environmental leaders knew we had key, but different, roles in EPA's veto process. Sjnce Two Forks, Union Park and Colorado's vast untapped Gunnison Basin water losses have been intentionally uoverlooked" by state water officials. . 9. Colorado's HNot one droD Gunnison Policv" After Two Forks, Coloradofs Natural Resources Department Directors have quietly impremented an unauthorized, but de facto, Unot one drop from the Gunnison policyu. This self-defeating state policy was . recently reflected in a telephone call from a Colorado Water Conservation Board member to a Bureau of Reclamation manager) indicating Bureau representatives were not weJcome at ewes's Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) seoping meetings, if they support Gunnison transmountain storage alternatives~ Such covert behavior by a state official is a clear violation of his oath as a governor appointee to protect state water entitlements for all CoJoradans~ His caB aJso seriously confJicts with the intent of NEPAJ and damages free enterprise rights and innovation efforts I 3 ~