Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t:~~:~,~:~;:.~'; 1": <br /> <br />Natural Energy Resources Company <br />P. O. Box 567, Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133 <br />(719) 481-2003 FAX (719) 481-3452 <br /> <br />c ~;. I"~ 1 . (~;)lY~ <br />r /.....J <br /> <br />Oclorarlo Wat~t Com;~~~,<'~-.\,\~n ~~~,.r.:; <br /> <br />February 13, 2004 <br /> <br />Dr. Bill Soya, President <br />and City Council Members <br />City of Pueblo <br />1 City Hall Place <br />PuebloJ Colorado 81003 <br /> <br />Subject: Water Decision Crossroads <br /> <br />Dear President Soya and Council Members: <br /> <br />Pueblo and Colorado Springs are at a critical water decision crossroads. Pueblo's Southern Delivery System <br />decision will greatly impact its future - as well as Colorado Springs and the State of Colorado. <br /> <br />The enclosed George Sibley commentary is an excellent account of Colorado's general water policy confusion, <br />conflicts, and wasted efforts. Unfortunately, the current controversy over Colorado Springs' proposed Southern <br />Delivery System is symptomatic of Colorado's underlying water policy crisis. <br /> <br />The enclosed letter to President Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton briefly outlines the multiple <br />advantages of Colorado's superior GunnisonlUnion Park Pumped~StDrage solution for local, state, and regional <br />drought and growth needs. Union Park was not considered by Colorado Springs - apparently because of an <br />institutional bias against cooperative multi-basin storage projects. This improper exclusion violates the <br />National Environmental Policy Act. NEP A requires environmental and economic comparisons of all <br />reasonable alternatives. <br /> <br />EPA vetoed Denver's Two Forks Dam proposal, after a ten-year/$50 million effort, because "superior <br />alternatives (Le. Union Park), were improperly screened from the environmental studies". Colorado Springs is <br />headed for a similar fate with its environmentally damaging, inefficient, SDS proposal. <br /> <br />Water rights and development proposals that excessively de-water over-appropriated rivers are still subject to <br />NEPA and EPA review and approval. To avoid additional Two Forks and Homestake II type debacles, the City <br />of Pueblo should insist on a preliminary scoping evaluation of the Union Park oversight. Any Southern <br />Delivery System Agreements with Colorado Springs should be deferred until all impacted stakeholders have a <br />chance to compare SDS with Union Park. <br /> <br />I would be honored to provide a briefmg for Pueblo's City Council on the overlooked advantages of Union <br />Park. <br /> <br />gt~~4 <br /> <br />Dave Miller, President <br /> <br />Enc1s: George Sibley article dated 2-5-04 & letter to President Bush & Secretary Norton dated 2~2~04. <br /> <br />i <br />