Laserfiche WebLink
<br />10.Colorado's divisive water decision process Colorado is blessed with high <br />mountajns that generate most of the renewable water supplies for Southwestern states <br />from Nebraska to California. However, our state requires about 700/0 of the nation's <br />water attorneys in a conflicted decision process that has caused virtual wC!ter <br />development gridlock since Two Forks. Colorado 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 surplus river <br />basins. The six part-time Colorado Water Conservation Board members that represent <br />Colorado.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. An other Western states use full time water resource <br />professionaJs for strategic water plannjng. Statewide planning is essential to guide <br />water development recommendations for elected officials. Colorado's self-defeating <br />water decision process may explain why its major cities go it alone with inferior water <br />rights and conceptsJ while overlooking the superior Union Park alternative. With <br />objective and aggressive leadership, Union Park could soon provide major benefits for <br />most urban, farm, and environmental stakeholders throughout our state and region. <br /> <br />Conclusion Instead of wasting vaJuable time and resources on another fatally flawed ElS, <br />NECO strongly recommends that alllocal, state, and federal stakeholders jointly support <br />an emergency program to develop Union Park's multiple water and power advantages for <br />multiple river basins. Union Park's high storage avoids the adverse environmentah <br />impacts, inefficiencies, and safety problems associated with traditional Western river <br />dams. Large scale recharge alternatives into Denver Basin bedrock formations with <br />excessive Two forks rights are not competitive with Union Park, because of major costs <br />associated with pumping, water quality, response time, rock fracturing, and new surface <br />storage need~. <br /> <br />After its early 19908 drought, Southern California permitted and built a large, off-river, <br />pumped-storage reservoir east of Los AngeJes in record time with full cooperation from the <br />environmental community. With Union Park's extraordinary multiple benefits for both <br />slopes, a united effort could probably beat California's impressive reservoir development <br />record. <br /> <br />~cerelY , <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />Dave Miller, President and <br />Independent Water Planner <br /> <br />Encl; Ueblacker Associates letter to Governor Owens, dated October 20, 2003 <br /> <br />cc: The White House, Interjor Secretary Gale Norton. Agriculture Secretary Ann <br />Veneman, EPA Administrator Michael leavitt, Western Governors and legislatorsJ <br />Council on Environmental Quality, CongressionaJ Natural Resources Committees, <br />Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers~ <br /> <br />4 <br />