Laserfiche WebLink
<br />· Union Park's multi-purpose revenues and unprecedented 10 to 1 benefit-cost expectations <br />can be used by its cooperating owner-developers to decrease their near and long-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 development <br />proposals; <br /> <br />· Union Park's new water supplies and flexible high storage will increase regional stream <br />flows during droughts. Its owner-developers can avoid costly permitting conflicts and delays <br />from multitudes of opposers. This is especially true when considering farmer, <br />environmental, West Slope, Nebraska, and Kansas opposers, who rightfully object to single <br />purpose water projects that further deplete river flows during droughts; <br /> <br />· Increased urban return flows from Union Park's new water supplies will automatically <br />provide a free bonanza for Western endangered species and farmers. Additional high <br />reservoirs can eventually replace marginal Western river dams that are filling with silt, <br />causing excessive evaporation and pollution, and harming river environments; <br /> <br />· Union Parkts high storage can help the Bureau of Reclamation solve its existing Taylor Park <br />and Pueblo Dam safety problems. Bureau studies indicate these facilities would suffer <br />catastrophiC failures under Maximum Probable Flood (MPF) conditions; <br /> <br />· EPA vetoed Denver's proposed Two Forks Dam, primarily because Colorado's "overlooked" <br />Gunnison entitlements and more productive Union Park high storage site were improperly <br />screened from the environmental studies. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) <br />specifically requires "economic and environmental comparisons of all reasonable <br />alternatives". The inferior Aurora and Colorado. Springs development 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 ploy to. delay consideration of Union Park. <br /> <br />In view of these facts, it would be irresponsible for Aurora, Colorado Springs, and others to <br />proceed with their inferior water development proposals. Aurora and Colorado Springs have a <br />golden leadership opportunity to help Colorado break its destructive water policy gridlock. <br />Superior ideas ultimately prevail. Your citizens deserve the superior Union Park solution. <br /> <br />E;:~ <br /> <br />Dave Miller, President <br /> <br />encls: News articles on Colorado'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 Interior, Agriculture, and <br />Energy, EPA, Congressional Resource Committees, the White House, and selected city, <br />county, agriculture, business, engineer, environmental, recreation, voter and media entities <br />and associations. . <br /> <br />I <br />J <br />