Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />~- <br /> <br />J-'Ab!:. l11 ~ <br /> <br /> <br />~~:~ ff~ ,,,-":'Y:;i ~ ft ti':'i'. -;;.:;~, <br />'ri~~ ..~ ;~: if t.li'!{~ ;tJ! <br /> <br />(corrected .:opy 2..16..04) <br /> <br />r; r: 7,~ ~l- , / Z004 <br />r ~,~ \} , <br /> <br />Natural Energy Resourees CompaDY <br />p ~ o. Box 567, Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133 <br /><'19) 481~2003 FAX (719) 481-3452 <br /> <br />f~lada Water ConseNation Bcare'. <br /> <br />February 13. 2004 <br /> <br />The Bouorable Randy Tburstoll, President <br />and City Coubal Members <br />CJey of Pueblo <br />1 City Hall Place <br />:Pueblo, Colorado 81003 <br /> <br />Subjeet~ W.ter DecJQoa CrOllrosd <br /> <br />Dear PrelJdent Thurston add Council Members: <br /> <br />Pueblo and Colorado Springs are at a critical water decision orossroad. rfPueblo agrees with the proposed <br />Southern Delivery System, it will adversely impact its future - as well as Colorado Springs. and the State of <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />The encJosed George Sibley commentary is an excellent account o.fColorado's general water policy confusion., <br />contlicts, and wasted effortS. The current controversy over Colorado Springs' proposed Southem Pelivery System <br />is symptomatic of Colorado's underlying water policy crisis. <br /> <br />The enclosed Jetter to President Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton briefly outlines the muJtiple advantages of <br />Colorado's superior OunllisonlUnion Park Pumped-Storage solution for local, state, and regional drought and <br />growth needs" UnfortunatelYt Union Park was not considered by Colorado Springs --- apparently because of an <br />institutional bias against cooperative multi..basjn storage projects~ This improper exclusion violates the National <br />Environmental PoUoy Act~ NEPA requires envirorunental and economic comparisons ofalt reasonable alternatives.. <br /> <br />EPA vetoed Denver}s Two Forks Dam proposal, after a ten "'year, $50 InilJion effort, because '.superlor a1tematives <br />(l.e~ Union Park), were improperly screened fro,n the environmental studies"~ Colorado Springs is headed for a <br />similBf fate with its inefficient, SDS proposal that unnecessarily depletes the overly depleted 1\rkansas River'l <br /> <br />Exorbitant water rights and misguided development proposals that excessively de~water over-appropriated rivers <br />are still subject to NEPA-EPA oversight review. To protect its future and avoid additional Two Forks and <br />Hornestake II type mist8kes, the City of Pueblo should insist on It preliminary scoping evalua:tion of the Union Park <br />oversight. Any Southern Delivery System Agreements with Colorado Springs should be deferred until all impaoted <br />stakeholders have a cbance to com.pare 8DS with Union Park.. <br /> <br />I would be honored to provide a briefing for Pueblo's City CounciJ on the overlooked advantages of Union Park. <br /> <br /> <br />JZ::- ~JL <br /> <br />Dave, Miller President <br /> <br />Enclosures: George Sibley article dated 2..0.5-04 & letter to President Bush & Secretary Norton dated 2.02...04. <br /> <br />