Laserfiche WebLink
<br />· Union Park's multi...purpose revenues and unprecedented 10 to 1 benefjf..cost expectations <br />can be, used by its cooperating owner...developers to decrease their near and Jong-term <br />water user fees~ Most Colorado water providers, including Aurora and Colorado Springs~ <br />are projecting major water rate increases to pay for their obsolete water deveropment <br />proposals; <br /> <br />· Unjon Park's new water suppUes and flexible high storage will increase regjonar stream <br />flows during droughts. Its owner-developers can avoid costry permitting conflicts and delays <br />from multitudes of opposers. This is especially true when considering farmer, <br />environmental, West Slope, NebraskaF and Kansas opposers, who rightfurly object to single <br />purpose water projects that further deplete river flows during droughts; <br /> <br />· Increased urban return f~ows from Union Park's new water supplies will automaticaUy <br />provide a free bonanza for Western endangered species and farmers. Additional high <br />reservoirs can eventualJy repjace' marginaJ Western rjver dams that are filling with siltr <br />causing excessive evaporation and pollution, and harming river environments; <br /> <br />· Union Parkls high storage can help the Bureau of RecJamation solve its existing Taylor Park <br />and .Pueblo Dam safety problems. Bureau studies jndicate these facilities would suffer <br />catastrophic failures under Maximum Probable Flood (MPF) conditions; <br /> <br />· EPA vetoed Denver's proposed Two Forks Dam, primarHy because Colorado's uoverlookedu <br />Gunnison entitJements and more productive Union Park high storage site were improperly <br />screened from the environmentaf studies~ The National Environmental PoHcy Act (NEPA) <br />specifically requires 41economic and environmental comparisons of all reasonable <br />aJternativesu. The jnferior Aurora and Cororado. Springs deveropment 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 slopes. However, they have been inhibited from <br />speaking out since Two Forks, because of inappropriate opposition from Colorado's <br />Directors of Natural Resources. CDNR'S unrealistic Big Straw Study is another misguided <br />political prey to c delay consideration of Union Park~ <br /> <br />In view of these factsJ it would be irresponsible for Aurora, Colorado Sprjngs, and others to <br />proceed with their inferior water development proposals~ Aurora and Cororado Springs have a <br />golden Jeadership opportunity to help Colorado break jts destructive water policy gridlock. <br />Superior ideas uJtimately prevail. Your citfzens deserve the superior Union Park solution~ <br /> <br />C7JL <br /> <br />Dave Miller, President <br /> <br />enels: News articles on Cororado's conflicted Gunnison transmountain policies~ <br />Geologic Summary on Union Park Dam site, and Reservoir Cost Comparisons~ <br /> <br />cc: Potential Union Park participants~ Colorado legislators and Congressional Delegation, <br />Governor Owens and Western Governors, U.S. Departments of Jnterior, Agriculture, and <br />Energy~ EPA, CongressionaJ Resource Committees, the White House, and selected city, <br />county. agriculturet business, engineert environmental, recreation, voter and media entities <br />and associations. ' <br />