My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ColoradoComments32
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
ColoradoComments32
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:32:13 AM
Creation date
1/7/2008 3:53:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
Colorado
Title
Comments 32
Date
4/29/2004
SWSI - Doc Type
Comments
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I am concerned about the exclusion of Trans-Basin diversion information from the basin <br />flow numbers. It would give us a greater idea of where some of the In-Basin Gaps are <br />coming from. It also shows folks here in the Colorado Basinjust how much water is <br />going over the divide in relation to how much water is staying. Cumulative impacts <br />between basins are just as important as cumulative impacts between projects. To treat <br />basins and projects as isolated events is dangerous, particularly when considering <br />environmental needs and demands. <br /> <br />Conservation and Efficiency seem to be given pretty short shrift as "projects" in the <br />Options Catalog. The only mention of conservation is with the UPCO study (C5) and the <br />Eagle River Basin Water Issues (C4). No specifics are given, as with reservoir projects. <br />All projects, structural and non....structural, need to have a consideration of conservation <br />and efficiency in their "needs" assessment before any engineering and construction are <br />contemplated~ Are they really needed? A basin wide Conservation and Efficiency <br />project needs to be undertaken, as a cumulative study as well as individual project needs <br />study. Conservation and efficiency work could eliminate the need for extensive, <br />expensive and destructive reservoir projects and should always be considered first. They <br />must not be considered separately in SWSI. <br /> <br />Why is the Eagle River Basin the only area that has "growth control" as a non-structural <br />option? I spoke with Tom Stone and he is unaware of any growth control measures that <br />are in the works. I am on the Eagle County Planning Commission and I am also unaware <br />of any growth control measures, not that I disagree with the need. Growth control is an <br />option that should be applied Statewide, and especially along the Front Range. If you are <br />going to keep growth control as an option it should rank up there with conservation WId <br />efficiency as a tool before reservoir construction. <br /> <br />We need water for free flowing rivers and the river ecosystem no less than we need water <br />for toilets. As Rick Sackbauer sai~ tourists come here and people move here because <br />they like real rivers and the recreational amenities they provide. All considerations need <br />to be given that concern when contemplating any project or alternative. The character, <br />economy and life of the Colorado Basin depend on it. Colorado depends on it. <br /> <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~~~ <br /> <br />Colorado Trout Unlimited West Slope Organizer <br />PO Box 1448 <br />Eagle, CO 81631 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.