ArkansasComments01 ‎(2)‎

• Basin: Arkansas
• Title: Comments 1
• Date: 8/3/2003
• SWSI - Doc Type: Comments

Page 1 of2

G

Brown, Rick

From: Warren Paul [[e-mail]
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:56 PM
To: Brown, Rick
Subject: Statewide Water Supply Initiative

Dear Rick,

I would like to add my two cents worth on projects that I think should be screened as part of the SWSI process.
You can call this the "Paul" plan, but should not associate it with my employer, Washington Group International,
Inc. since I do not have approval to use that name in association with these proposals. I am speaking here as a
concerned, knowledgeable citizen of Colorado. All of these projects would not impinge on existing water rights,
except for an obvious one in which non-consumptive rights would be obtained for fair compensation in order to
enhance recreational opportunities and River Control for beneficial use for man and the environment. I am sure
that some or all of these projects have been studied by others in whole or part at some point in the past.

1. Colorado River Control Reservoir (CR2). This would be a large, OFFSTREAM reservoir (1 million to 1.8
million acre feet, few environmental minuses) at the lowest point of clean water coming into the river, ie,
below the Eagle confluence, perhaps near Ootsero, with the reservoir lined with clay or other material if
need be to keep it clean. The reservoir would be filled entirely by pumping. The reservoir would be
operated for multiple purposes, many of which would benefit the West Slope. Purpose 1 would be annual
operation to level downstream water quality for agricultural users, with the added benefit of doing the same
for recreational users. Excess spring runoff would be stored and released later in each agricultural year as
dilution water against the salts that enter the main stem downstream. Purpose 2 would be increasing west
Slope firm yield, and Purpose 3 would be West Slope Orought Reserve. The West slope cannot pay for
this, although it should be charged typical agricultural rates, much less than M&I rates, for the services.
Hence Purpose 4 will need to be Front Range firm yield, and purpose 5 should be front range drought
reserve, both of which the front range can be charged enough for to retire the bonds. Water from this
reservoir can be pumped or rights-transferred to new or existing front range terminal reservoirs through
existing tunnels or through a new pipeline that would go along the crown of the Henderson mine to its
bottom, and then go through a new ad it to the mine exiting somewhere near Guard Station into the north
branch of Clear Creek, helping Clear Creek rafting along the way. Something simiJar to this new divide
crossing, J understand, was once studied by Westminster.. I got the 1.8 million acre feet number by
multiplying the likely actual undeveloped state entitlement of 600,000 af per year by 3.

2. Colorado Flow Control Project. Simply buyout the Shoshone Call, a non"consumptive right that limits what
can be done with the river. The buyout might include building a new, replacement 15 MW gas turbine plant
in Glenwood Springs on no more than 2 acres, which including land and powerline relocation, should cost
no more than about $25 Million. Such buyout mIght have some terrific benefits in many categories: 1.)
Breach the dam associated with the Shoshone Plant, which would permit rafting all the way through
Glenwood Canyon. I would like to be in the first raft. 2.) regain control of a good part of the river in~state
by eliminating the need to meet the Shoshone Call. 3.) Give the folks contemplating development of
NaturaJ Gas in Northwest Colorado a well-located customer in the replacement powerplant, thus
encouraging that development. No doubt, Xcel will want to negotiate a tough deal for losing their lowest
cost power producer, the fully amortized, Jow O&M cost Shoshone plant. However, as a 26 year
experienced designer and builder of dams and hydro plants, I now say some words I never imagined I
would say, remove that dam!

3. Water for the Arkansas. If in some sense, part of the Colorado River entitlement belongs to the folks in the
Arkansas valley, then how to get it there? I personally heard at this year's Colorado Water Congress
Governor Owens' opinion of the Union Park project and agree with it. However, using a portion of that
proiect in reverse to get transfer water from the Colorado into the Arkansas does make some sense. You

8/4/2003