Laserfiche WebLink
<br />· Union Park~s multi-purpose revenues and unprecedented 10 to 1 benefit-cost expectations <br />can be used by jts cooperating owner-developers to decrease their near and long-term <br />water user fees. Most Colorado water providerst including Aurora and Colorado Springs, <br />are projecting major water rate increases to pay for their obsolete water deveropment <br />proposals; <br /> <br />· Union Park's new water supplies and flexibJe high storage will increase regionaJ stream <br />flows during droughts. Its owner-developers can avoid costly permitting conflicts and deJays <br />from multitudes of opposers. This is especiaUy true when considering farmer, <br />environmental, West Slope, Nebraska, and Kansas opposersl who rightfuUy object to single <br />purpose water projects that further deplete river frows during droughts; <br /> <br />· Increased urban return flows from Union Park's new water supplies wilJ automatically <br />provide a free bonanza for Western endangered species and farmers. Addjtional high <br />reservoirs can eventually replace' marginar Western river dams that are fHling with silt, <br />causing excessive evaporation ~nd poUution, and harming river environments; <br /> <br />· Union Park's high storage can help the Bureau of Reclamation soJve its existing Taylor Park <br />and .Puebro Dam safety problems. Bureau studies indicate these facilities wouJd suffer <br />catastrophic failures unqer Maximum Probable Flood (MPF) conditions; C <br /> <br />· EPA vetoed Denver's proposed Two Forks Dam, primarily because Colorado's "overlookedu <br />Gunnison entitlements and more productive Union Park high storage site were improperly <br />screened from the environmental studies. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) <br />specificaJly requires 'ieconomic and environmental comparisons of aU reasonabJe <br />alternativesJ1. The inferior Aurora and Colorado- Springs development plans will surely not <br />pass EPA's NEPA test; <br /> <br />· Private and government engineers generally agree that Union Park has major environmental <br />and economic advantages for both sropes. However, they have been inhibited from <br />speaking out since Two Forks~ because of inappropriate opposition from Colorado's <br />Directors of NaturaJ Resources. CDNR's unrealistic Big Straw Study is another misguided <br />politicar ploy to. delay consideration of Union Park. <br /> <br />J n view of these facts, it wourd be irresponsible for Aurora, Colorado Springs, and others to <br />proceed with their inferior water deveropment proposaJs. Aurora and Colorado Springs have a <br />golden leadership opportunity to help Colorado break its destructive water policy gridfock~ <br />Superior ideas ultimatery prevaiL Your citizens deserve the superior Union Park soJution. <br /> <br />C~ <br /> <br />Dave Miller1 President <br /> <br />enels: News articles on Coloradors conflicted Gunnison transmountain policies~ <br />Geologic Summary on Union Park Dam siter and Reservoir Cost Comparjsons. <br /> <br />cc: Potential Union Park participan.ts~ CoJorado legislators and Congressional Delegation, <br />Governor Owens and Western Governors, U.S. Departments of Jnterior, Agriculture, and <br />Energy. EPA, Congressional Resource Committeest the White House~ and selected CitYI <br />county, agriculture] business, engjneer, environmentaC recreation, voter and media entities <br />and associations. <br />