ArkansasComments25

• Basin: Arkansas
• Title: Comments 25
• Date: 2/13/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Comments

I-'AC;:it. 111 \.0'

I~~~~ ~;.~:; ;~J:;:; 1"']
l~~:~ ~ ;;1;-".' ~ b ~~ ,2-1 r..\.:~

(corrected copy 2-16~04)

f F (t 1 "f 2004

Natural Energy Resourees Company
P. O. JkJx 567. PaJmer Lake, Colorado 80133
[phone] FAX [phone]

Orl~rado Wajllr ConseNalion 6o"tr,

February 13~ 2004

The Honol1llble Randy Tbuntol1~ President
aDd City COlnaell Membert
City or Pueblo
1 City Hall Place
Pueblo, Cohlrado 81003

Subjeet~ Water DeeIUo" Crouroad

De.r President Thurston and Council Members:

Pueblo and Colorado Springs are at a critical water decision orossroad. rfPueblo agrees with the proposed
Soutbern. Delivery System, it will adversely impact its future - as wen as Colorado Springs and the State of
Colorado.

The enclosed George Sibley commentaty is an excellent account ofColorado's general water policy confusion,
conflicts, and wasted effort!. The current controversy over Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System
is symptomatic of Colorado's underlying water policy crisis.

The enclosed Jetter to President Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton brietly outlines the multiple advantages of
Colorado's superior GunnisonlUnion Park Pumped-Storage solution for local, state, and regional drought and
growth needs. Unfortunately, Union P8.tk was not considered by Colorado Springs - apparently because of an
institutional bias against cooperative multi-bagin storage projects. This im.proper exclusion violates the Nationa.l
E.nvironmental Policy Act. NEP A requires environmental and economic comparisons of 311 reasonable alternatives.

EPA vetoed Denver's Two Forks Dam proposal, after a ten-year, $50 million effort, because "superior alternatives
(i.e. Union Park), were improperly screened from tbe environmental studies". Colorado Springs is headed for a
similar fate with its inefficient, SOS proposal that unnecessarily depletes the overly depleted Arkansas River.

Exorbitant water rights and misguided development proposals that excessively de~water over-a.ppropriated rivers
are still subject to NEPA-EPA oversight review. To protect its future and avoid additional Two Forks and
Home.stake II type mistakes, the City of Pueblo should insist on a preliminary seoping evaluation of the Vnion Park
oversight. Any Southern Delivery System Agreements with Colorado Springs should be deferred until all impacted
stakeholders have fl chance to compare SDS with Union Park.

I would be honored to provide a briefing for Pueblo's CHy Council on the overlooked advantages of Union Park.

JZ:- ~JL

Dave, MUlct President

Enclosures: George Sibley article dated 2-05-04 & letter to President Bush & Secretary Norton dated 2-02~04.

.:

--