Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ... <br /> <br />101lColorado's divisive water decision process Colorado is blessed with high <br />mountains that generate most of the renewable water supplies for Southwestern states <br />from Nebraska to California. HoweverJ our state requires about 70% of the nation's <br />water attorneys in a conflicted decision process that has caused virtual wC]ter <br />development gridlock since Two Forks. CoJorado Natural Resources Directors have <br />consistently opposed ,state studies to objectively evaluate major trans-basin storage <br />options that would help balance water usage between water-short and surpJus rjver <br />basins. The six part-time Colorado Water Conservation Board members that represent <br />Co!orado's sparsely populated river basins can easily out maneuver the three voting <br />members that represent Colorado's dryer basins with larger populations and farming <br />areas~ <br /> <br />Colorado intentionally avoids statewide water planning~ because of misguided political <br />infighting between river basins. All other Western states use fuJI time water resource <br />professjonals for strategic water planning. Statewide plannjng is essential to guide <br />water development recommendations for elected officialsr Colorado's self-defeating <br />water decision process may explain why its major cities go it alone with inferior water <br />rights and concepts, whire overfooking the superior Union Park alternative. With <br />objective and aggressive leadership, Union Park couJd soon provide major benefits for <br />most urban, farm, and environmental stakeholders throughout our state and regfon. <br /> <br />Conclusion Jnstead of wasting valuable time and resources on another fatally flawed EIS, <br />NEeD strongly recommends that alllocalJ state, and federaJ stakeholders jointly support <br />an emergency program to develop Union Parkfs multiple water and power advantages for <br />multiple river basins. Union Park's high storage avoids the adverse environmentalr <br />impacts, inefficienciesl and safety problems associated wfth tradftional Western river <br />dams. Large scale recharge alternatives into Denver Basin bedrock formations with <br />excessive Two Forks rights are not competitive with Union ParkJ because of major costs <br />associated with pumping, water quality, response time, rock fracturing I and new surface <br />storage need~. <br /> <br />After its early 1990s drought, Southern California permitted and buHt a large, off-river, <br />pumped-storage reservoir east of Los Angeles in record time with full cooperation from the <br />environmental community. With Union Park~s extraordinary multip[e benefits for both <br />sropes, a united effort could probably beat CaliforniaJs impressive reservoir development <br />record. <br /> <br />r'~. <br /> <br />Dave MilJer,- President and <br />Independent Water PJanner <br /> <br />Enel; Ueblacker Associates Jetter to Governor Owens, dated October 20~ 2003 <br /> <br />cc: The White House, Interjor Secretary Ga~e Norton, Agricurture Secretqry Ann <br />Vanaman, EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt, Western ~overnors and legislators, <br />Council on Environmental Quarity~ CongressionaJ Natural Resources CommitteesJ <br />Bureau of Reclamation, UrS. Army Corps of Engineers. <br /> <br />4 <br />