Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 1 of2 @ <br /> <br />Brown, Rick <br /> <br />From: Warren Paul [warren.paul@wgfntcom] <br />Sent: Sunday, August 03~ 2003 7:56 PM <br />To: Brown, Rick <br />Subject: Statewide Water Supply Initiative <br /> <br />Dear Rfck, <br /> <br />, would like to add my two cents worth on projects that I thrnk should be screened as part of the SWSf process. <br />You can caJl this the "Paul" plan1 but should not associate it with my employerl Washington Group International, <br />Inc. since I do not have approval to use that name in association with these proposals. f am speaking here as a <br />concerned1 knowledgeable citizen of Colorado~ Arl of these projects would not impinge on existing water rights, <br />except for an obvious one in which non-consumptive dghts would be obtained for fair compensation in order to <br />enhance recreational opportunrties and River Control for beneficial use for man and the environment. I am sure <br />that some or all of these projects have been studied by others in whole or part at some point in the past. <br /> <br />1. Colorado River Control Reservoir (CR2). This would be a large, OFFSTREAM reservoir (1 mUJion to 1.8 <br />mi'~ion acre feet, few environmentaJ minuses) at the lowest point of clean water coming into the river; je, <br />below the Eagle confluence, perhaps near Dotsero, with the reservoir lined with clay or other material if <br />need be to keep it clean. The reservoir would be filled entirely by pumping. The reservoir would be <br />operated for multiple purposesl many of which would benefa the West Slope~ Purpose 1 would be annual <br />operation to Jevei downstream water quaHty for agricultural users, with the added benefit of doing the same <br />for recreational users. Excess spring runoff would be stored and released later in each agricultural year as <br />diJutron water agarnst the salts that enter the main stem downstream. Purpose 2 would be increasing west <br />slope firm yield, and Purpose 3 would be West Slope Drought Reserve. The West slope cannot pay for <br />this, although it should be charged typical agricuftural rates1 much less than M&I rates, for the services. <br />Hence Purpose 4 will need to be Front Range firm yjeld, and purpose 5 should be front range drought <br />reserve, both of which the front range can be charged enough for to retire the bonds. Water from this <br />reservoir can be pumped or rights-transferred to new or existing front range terminal reservoirs through <br />existing tunnels or through a new pipeline that would go along the crown of the Henderson mine to its <br />bottom, and then go through a new adit to the mine exjting somewhere near Guard Station into the north <br />branch of Clear Creekt helping Clear Creek rafting along the way. Something similar to this new divide <br />crossjng, I understand, was once studied by WestminsteL I got the 1.8 million acre feet number by <br />multipiying the likeJy actual undeveloped state entitlement of 600,000 af per year by 3. <br /> <br />2. Colorado Flow Controf Project. Sfmply buyout the Shoshone Call, a non-consumptrve right that limits what <br />can be done with the river. The buyout might include buirding a new, replacement 15 MW gas turbine plant <br />in Glenwood Springs on no more than 2 acres, which inc'uding land and powerUne relocation, shouJd cost <br />no more than about $25 Million. Such buyout might have some terrific benefits in many categories: 1.) <br />Breach the dam associated with the Shoshone Plant, which would permit rafting all the way through <br />Grenwood Canyon. I would like to be in the first raft. 2~) regain control of a good part of the river in..state <br />by eliminating the need to meet the Shoshone CaJI. 3.) Give the folks contemplating development of <br />Natural Gas in Northwest Colorado a well..located customer in the replacement powerplant, thus <br />encouraging that development No doubt, XceJ will want to negotiate a tough deaf for losing their lowest <br />cost power producerf the fully amortized, Jow O&M cost Shoshone plant. However, as a 26 year <br />experienced designer and builder of dams and hydroplants, J now say some words I never imagined I <br />would say, remove that dam! <br /> <br />3. Water for the Arkansas. If in some sense1 part of the Colorado River ent;tlement belongs to the folks rn the <br />Arkansas vaUey, then how to get it there? I personaUy heard at this year's Cororado Water Congress <br />Governor Owens~ opinion of the Union Park project and agree with it. However, using a portion of that <br />oro.iect in reverse to get transfer water from the Coforado into the Arkansas does make some sense. You <br /> <br />8/4/2003 <br />