GunnisonComments09

• Basin: Gunnison
• Title: Comments 9
• Date: 2/13/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Comments

C!l

t.....-~... . L..~i _ .......~\ ~

t~~r. /:~' ~.C.~ i.~ .

Natural Energy Resources Company
P. O. Box 567, Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133
[phone] FAX [phone]

F t: t1 1 . (~G~~

tJclorado WUt!1t c:ontt1..i;\,~^,:...~il 2.:Jr~.I-:;

February 13, 2004

Dr. Bill Soya, President
and City Coun~il Members
City of Pueblo
1 City Hall Place
Pueblo, Colorado 81003

Subject: Water Decision Crossroads

Dear President Soya and Council Members:

Pueblo and Colorado Springs are at a critical water decision crossroads. Pueblo's Southern Delivery System
decision will greatly impact its future - as well as Colorado Springs and the State of Colorado.

The enclosed George Sibley commentary is an excellent account orColorado's general water policy confusion,
conflicts, and wasted effortsf Unfortunately, the current controversy over Colorado Springs' proposed Southern
Delivery System is symptomatic of Colorado's underlying water policy crisis.

The enclosed letter to President Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton briefly outlines the multiple
advantages of Colorado's superior GunnisonlUnion Park Pumped-Storage solution for local, state, and regional
drought and grow1h needs. Union Park was not considered by Colorado Springs -- apparently because of an
institutional bias against cooperative multi-basin storage projectsf This improper exclusion violates the
National Environmental Policy Act. NEP A requires environmental and economic comparisons of all
reasonable alternatives.

EPA vetoed Denver's Two Forks Dam proposal, after a ten-year/$50 million effort, because "superior
alternatives (i.e. Union Park), were improperly screened from the environmental studies". Colorado Springs is
headed for a similar fate with its enviromnentaIly damaging, inefficient, SDS proposal.

Water rights and development proposals that excessively de-water over-appropriated rivers are still subject to
NEP A and EP A review and approval. To avoid additional Two Forks and Homestake IT type debacles, the City
of Pueblo should insist on a preliminary scoping evaluation of the Union Park oversight. Any Southern
Delivery System Agreements with Colorado Springs should be deferred until all impacted stakeholders have a
chance to compare SDS with Union Park.

I would be honored to provide a briefmg for Pueblo's City Council on the overlooked advantages of Union
Park.

tl::e ~A

Dave Miller, President

Encls: George Sibley article dated 2-5-04 & letter to President Bush & Secretary Norton dated 2-2-04.

}